Talk:HTTP: Difference between revisions

From Rosetta Code
Content added Content deleted
(That also works)
(New section: Not Tested)
Line 10: Line 10:
::I'm not sure I like the approach. Wouldn't "Display the request content using the most convenient method" be more appropriate? Some languages may not have easy access to the console. --[[User:Short Circuit|Short Circuit]] 03:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::I'm not sure I like the approach. Wouldn't "Display the request content using the most convenient method" be more appropriate? Some languages may not have easy access to the console. --[[User:Short Circuit|Short Circuit]] 03:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:::That's OK too. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 16:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:::That's OK too. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 16:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== Not Tested ==

Well..someone can test C# and Ruby examples?
They are working?

Revision as of 17:39, 5 October 2008

Clarify

Again, the task specification is really vague. It only says "Print a URL's content." This rises questions:

  • What do you mean by "print"? Print on paper or display on screen? There seems to be both interpretations in current implementations.
  • What do you mean by "content"? The source code or rendered page?

Why is it so difficult to write even couple of sentences to specify the task? Specifying the task is the most important part of any software project.
--PauliKL 09:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Relax, it's fixed. --Mwn3d 12:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I like the approach. Wouldn't "Display the request content using the most convenient method" be more appropriate? Some languages may not have easy access to the console. --Short Circuit 03:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
That's OK too. --Mwn3d 16:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Not Tested

Well..someone can test C# and Ruby examples? They are working?