David Binger wrote: > On Aug 11, 2005, at 5:58 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>> Should Quixote's publisher give the same result >>> when PATH_INFO is 'foo/bar' that it gives >>> when PATH_INFO is '/foo/bar' ? >>> I don't know what to think about this, but it does seem good to >>> do something other than trip on the assert. >>> >> >> Well, what else could "foo/bar" mean? It's really the fault of the >> server, but we might as well make Quixote flexible for misplaced >> slashes, >> especially when the specs are not as clear as they should be. >> > > I *suppose* that whenever the PATH_INFO is not a string > that starts with '/', you could return a permanent > redirect to SCRIPT_NAME + '/' + PATH_INFO > This would cover the empty case the same way as this odd case.
Do we even need to code for that? The observed problem is PATH_INFO="". Are there any cases where PATH_INFO="foo/bar" has occurred? Perhaps we should raise an *informative* exception for that and wait for the complaints to come in. When we have a specific server situation to study, we'll know better what to do. -- -- Mike Orr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ Quixote-users mailing list [email protected] http://mail.mems-exchange.org/mailman/listinfo/quixote-users
