Stipe Tolj wrote: > > Hi Roy, > > "Roy T. Fielding" wrote > > > > -1. Reject the request with a 400 error instead. > > actually a standard (apache layout) install (from source) on a linux > box with the URI described in the bug report gives also a 404, and > *not* a 400 in response. > > So we get the same behaviour on cygwin as on linux?! Why is the > behaviour on cygwin then "more wrong"?
which does not mean that I'm veto'ing the -1 in terms of HTTP response code semantics. That's ok for me and actually I would be +1 for responding 400 to a "non-valid, abussing" URI. But just to mention that the linux install did the same. So either we should have it changed generically, but not specifically for cygwin IMO. Stipe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------------------- Wapme Systems AG Münsterstr. 248 40470 Düsseldorf, NRW, Germany phone: +49.211.74845.0 fax: +49.211.74845.299 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.wapme-systems.de/ ------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (Cygwin) mIsEP6mcYwEEAMDnUiUwrbb+xwTFWN6TxF2+XZu7/alwJMeCwMBRvXtPZqfjpPhS OkBpU0F4TrVuugz1HINTSaJTYq10AzDQXp5NkyWgckqW79nPAWuOX0dicbJk+cN2 nM2TI4KaxUDe6u8hghNEnH/i2lXsUu9apnP/iixzV81VC2je3uc9hZpnAAYptEVT dGlwZSBUb2xqIChUZWNobm9sb2d5IENlbnRlciAmIFJlc2VhcmNoIExhYikgPHRv bGpAd2FwbWUtc3lzdGVtcy5kZT6ItAQTAQIAHgUCP6mcYwIbAwYLCQgHAwIDFQID AxYCAQIeAQIXgAAKCRABV0w1BqPYRuSqA/wPzsQxao2YePENCtgRTrO86U6zg3sl OcS6CJFI4FZP5h/xD3GRsNH1+MPSvZlomDdpFnr547DGz/Kq9MXuQwVvlVig5yWZ K5dtKp1r5YLhxJQBhfirZbRFFnYmf19f18J8OoS28tuFVftDl1AIwJS3HLyBTv6H g2HyLAEKQIp30Q== =aYCI -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
