I've found what I consider something completely harebrained in the HTTP/1.1
standard, so I decided to violate it.
That's a pretty bad principle to start from...
according to standards, a GET request cannot have a relative
URL reference, which makes the following example malformed:
GET
/software/gnash/tests/flvplayer2.swf?file=http://localhost:4080/software/gnash/tests/lulutest.flv
HTTP/1.1
I've got to imagine that these kinds of requests are generated all the
time, and it seems screw-loose to reject them.
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that cygnal
did act on these before, but now, in accordance with the standard,
does not?
As far as I know, everything after the ? is server-side-software
dependent and can be interpreted by a cgi script or what have you; is
part of the cygnal spec that it responds to such URL extensions
automatically?
Forgive me, I'm having trouble understanding the issue.
M
_______________________________________________
Gnash-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnash-dev
