Re: [WWWOFFLE-Users] matching all POST results in URL-SPEC

[Miernik]

Andrew M. Bishop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Miernik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
>> I tried in the Purge section:
>> 
>> <http://*/*POST*> age = 0
>> 
>> It doesn't work (POSTs are not matched by it). Why?
> 
> It doesn't work because the 'POST' is not really part of the URL, it
> is just something that WWWOFFLE adds when it displays it to the user.
> 

I found out that it didn't work, because the sites I tried had also CGI
parameters in the POST URL, but when I did:

<http://*/*!POST*>                              age = 0
<http://*/*?*!POST*>                            age = 0

it works both for URLs with CGI parameters, and without.

It appears that WWWOFFLE treats CGI parameters specially, and http://*/*
will not match http://foo.com/bar?baz , you have to use http://*/*?*
Wait, but when I use http://foo.com/* in my Purge section, everything is
matched OK, also if the URL has CGI parameters. So I don't know.

Besides that binding ? as the character defining where CGI
parameters begin and & as the separator, is not 100% sure, i've seen
sites which use / character for both. for example bahn.de uses mixed:
http://reiseauskunft.bahn.de/bin/zuginfo.exe/en/67557/289483/593024/273993/80/ld=212.56&seqnr=5&ident=m9.02412414.1141116804&currentReferrer=tp&;
Here "?" character is not used anywhere in the URL, but it clearly has
CGI parameters.

Some time ago era.pl used URLs like this:
http://era.pl/index.php/id=p_2xtaktak/section=taktak/zone=-1
now they changed them to standard:
http://era.pl/index.php?id=p_2xtaktak&section=taktak&zone=-1

Here also I would like to wash the zone=-1 as it is useless, and the
number changes, making the same URL cached multiple times, and not
beeing able to access the cached URL from links, because the zone=nn
number is different. It is also probably only used by them to track from
which page a user came to this page.

-- 
Miernik             _________________________  xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________/_______________________/      [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why software shouldn't be covered by patents
http://bladeenc.mp3.no/articles/software_patents.html