On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Ruediger Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 07/24/2008 09:32 PM, Eric Covener wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 3:01 PM, Ruediger Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> +1, but who is behaving correctly currently mod_cgi or mod_cgid? >>> >> >> The BNF from Ken's CGI RFC site seems to support the 1.3/mod_cgi >> interpretation (++ results in null strings in argv) >> >> http://ken.coar.org/cgi/draft-coar-cgi-v11-03.html#5.0 >> >> search-string = search-word *( "+" search-word ) >> search-word = 1*schar > > Doesn't this mean search-word must contain at least one schar? > So ++ would be invalid.
I misread what the * was attached to -- I agree with you (favoring mod_cgid) -- Eric Covener [EMAIL PROTECTED]
