- From: Dave Kristol <dmk@allegra.att.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Nov 95 17:18:13 EST
- To: drtr1@cus.cam.ac.uk
- Cc: www-talk@w3.org
drtr1@cus.cam.ac.uk (David Robinson) wrote: [Boy, this is getting hard to follow....] > > [DMK] > >I think my problem is that here (and in the PATH_INFO section) you > >leave unspecified how it is that PATH_INFO is arrived at, yet under > >"Defining a script URI" you make it clear it's the part after > >enc-script, which is what I would have expected. I would guess you're > >drawing a distinction between CGI's that are called as a result of URL > >processing and CGI's that are called by some other mechanism, in which > >case PATH_INFO would be derived some other way. > > How about rewriting it as follows: > * Firstly, define a 'script URL' which identifies the resource output by the > CGI script. This URL is only meaningful in the server-script context. > * State that this _may_ be the URL requested by the client, but then it might > not; for example, in the cases I listed above. > * Define SCRIPT_NAME, PATH_INFO, QUERY_STRING in terms of the 'script URL'. > > Do you think that would be clearer? I think it would be saying the same thing. I think that helps. Anything that adds precision and predictability helps. > > [...] > > > >Recommendations for scripts > [stuff about /../ and /./ in PATH_TRANSLATED] > > I've changed it to be more explicit. Have another look. Better. Thanks. Dave Kristol
Received on Thursday, 30 November 1995 17:52:43 UTC