- From: Dave Kristol <dmk@allegra.att.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Nov 95 16:35:04 EST
- To: drtr@ast.cam.ac.uk
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Here are some more comments on David Robinson's (Oct 16 and Nov 15, 1995) CGI 1.1 specification. PATH_INFO I think it's important for the CGI to be able to reconstruct the original request URI. With NCSA's server, the original request is http://$SERVER_NAME$SERVER_PORT$SCRIPT_NAME$PATH_INFO{?$QUERY_STRING} I would prefer how PATH_INFO is set to be spelled out, not be left so vague as to be useless for a specification. However, let me suggest we take a page from the ANSI C standard and create "implementation-defined" behavior. An implementation would be required to document what its PATH_INFO (and other environment variable) behavior is. More clearly than is now the case! PATH_TRANSLATED I think the description is wrong. enc-path conventionally encodes both the name of the script and PATH_INFO, not just PATH_INFO. I agree that PATH_TRANSLATED is a translation of the PATH_INFO. I think "enc-path" could never be null as shown in the example, although it can be null after the script name is stripped from enc-path. (A client must specify some character to take the place of URL in the request line. That character would logically be a part of PATH_INFO as currently described.) Defining a script URI The information here, particularly script-uri, appears to conflict with the information about PATH_INFO and PATH_TRANSLATED. Here we see enc-script called out explicitly, which is what I would expect. Data output from the CGI script: Content-Type To answer the questions in the Note: Content-Type should be mandatory only when there's a message body. That gets said under Parsed Header Output. Data output from the CGI script: Status I believe Status: can have an optional comment: Status = "Status" ":" 3digit *<not NL> NL Data output from the CGI script: HTTP headers I don't understand what this section is trying to say. For which HTTP headers does the CGI header syntax differ? Recommendations for scripts Why shouldn't the CGI script expect the server to fold PATH_INFO (PATH_TRANSLATED) information that contains "." or ".." the same way that the server handles them in a URL? In that case, the CGI would never actually see such stuff. Likewise for "//". System-specific standards I would like to see another "implementation-defined" item: for Unix systems (at least) what is "." when the script runs? NCSA httpd, for example, sets "." to the directory of the script. Dave Kristol
Received on Wednesday, 15 November 1995 14:20:22 UTC