Re: [Q] Anyone using path info?

From: Robert Szarka (
Date: Tue, Sep 07 1999

Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 14:32:32 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <>
To: Terje Bless <>
From: Robert Szarka <>
Cc: W3C Validator <>
Subject: Re: [Q] Anyone using path info?

At 01:33 AM 9/7/99 , Terje Bless wrote:
>However, "check", as currently written, tries to interpret the extra path
>info as if it is identical to any actual parameters (given after the "?" in
>the URI above). It will even choose the path info over the CGI parameters
>if it is present.
>    <URL:> (note "/" vs. "?")

Wow!  Yes, that is crufty.  No, I'm not doing it.

>>on that particular page, actually, but I could see how the other approach
>>would be useful for automating validation or using a handy list of pages
>>to validate...
>I'm not sure I understand what you mean. None of the two examples you gave
>would be affected by this change (referer handling is a special case that
>will be handled).

Never mind me.  I was conflating path info and a query string.  I will use
the handy excuse that I was writing at 3 AM.  :)

>>Arguably, someone that wants to automate validation should
>>probably just run the validator on their own site.
>I agree. One of my goals is to make the validator a little easier to run
>locally. Of course, another is to make it automatically check multiple URIs
>periodically. :-)

That would be great.  Now that I am switching to XHTML, I know I will need
to check more frequently and I don't want to abuse a public resource.

>>I keep meaning to get around to setting it up for myself and my customers,
>>so I guess if you improved the code it might encourage me to do it.  :)
>I hope so.

If you drop me a copy with TEST THIS in big letters in the subject line at
some point, I'll make time to put it through its paces.


Robert Szarka [RS495]
Managing Partner, Operations
DownCity, LLC
+1 860 823 3000