W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2001

Fusebox (was: Web Accessibility for Cognitive Users)

From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 23:33:18 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <200105182233.f4IMXIl19453@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Yes, that's true and one reason why I rejected the Fusebox method as it's
> currently applied. The trick is to avoid the ?. On my sites I substituted

It's a pity that few people are aware of PATH_INFO, which allows, servers
to construct virtual directories behind CGI applications.  Orignally 
GETs to ? URLs were supposed to be cacheable, but abuse of this means
that HTTP 1.1 requires a positive indication of cachability and some
proxies don't even bother looking at the headers on request for them.

This particular page also tried to dump two useless cookies on me,
which is another thing that needs careful handling for cachability.
Received on Friday, 18 May 2001 18:36:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:12 UTC