Re: SCRIPT_NAME and PATH_INFO with extension mapping

2001-10-02 Thread Jon Stevens
We are now discussing this problem on JSR-053's mailing list. It turns out that several other vendors break the spec and do somewhat close to the right thing. :-) Unfortunately, due to the politics at Sun, only members of the JSR can see this discussion. Sorry. -jon

RE: SCRIPT_NAME and PATH_INFO with extension mapping

2001-10-02 Thread Marc Saegesser
: Monday, October 01, 2001 1:04 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: SCRIPT_NAME and PATH_INFO with extension mapping > > > Quoting Jon Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > I'm a member of JSR-053. I will work to change it for the next release > > of the spe

Re: SCRIPT_NAME and PATH_INFO with extension mapping

2001-10-01 Thread Jon Stevens
on 10/1/01 9:09 AM, "Steve Downey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As another datapoint, static content with Apache doesn't work if you append > path info to an HTML page, i.e. http://www.foo.com/index.html/foo/bar, > doesn't deliver index.html. But PHP does work. -jon

RE: SCRIPT_NAME and PATH_INFO with extension mapping

2001-10-01 Thread Steve Downey
ww.foo.com/index.html/foo/bar, doesn't deliver index.html. > -Original Message- > From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 6:50 PM > To: tomcat-dev > Subject: SCRIPT_NAME and PATH_INFO with extension mapping > > >

Re: SCRIPT_NAME and PATH_INFO with extension mapping

2001-09-30 Thread Christopher Cain
Quoting Jon Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I'm a member of JSR-053. I will work to change it for the next release > of the spec. Cool. From what I've heard, the entire TC developer community is behind you 100%. Hell, even Costin agrees with you ... now *that's* truly a red letter day =) > Nee

Re: SCRIPT_NAME and PATH_INFO with extension mapping

2001-09-30 Thread Jon Stevens
on 9/30/01 10:30 PM, "Christopher Cain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's unfortunate that this didn't come up a few weeks ago, before the > finalization. I'll add my voice to the general sentiment that the servlet spec > really should've have tried to supercede the HTML spec on this, whether the

Re: SCRIPT_NAME and PATH_INFO with extension mapping

2001-09-30 Thread Jon Stevens
on 9/30/01 8:45 PM, "Bill Barker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As much as my personal preference is the same as Jon and Costin, it seems > that section 11.1 rule #3 explicitly dis-allows extension mappings to have a > PATH_INFO. > > If the last segment in URL path contains an extension (e.g .jsp

Re: SCRIPT_NAME and PATH_INFO with extension mapping

2001-09-30 Thread Christopher Cain
ast segment after > the > last '.' character. > > This is from the 2.3 Spec, since Jon is a 4.0 user. > > - Original Message - > From: "Jon Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "tomcat-dev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent:

Re: SCRIPT_NAME and PATH_INFO with extension mapping

2001-09-30 Thread Bill Barker
CTED]> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 3:49 PM Subject: SCRIPT_NAME and PATH_INFO with extension mapping > on 9/30/01 5:47 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > the conclusion was that the HTTP spec is wrong and we should > > follow the

Re: SCRIPT_NAME and PATH_INFO with extension mapping

2001-09-30 Thread Bill Barker
Sunday, September 30, 2001 6:37 PM Subject: Re: SCRIPT_NAME and PATH_INFO with extension mapping > on 9/30/01 7:16 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Well, I agree with you - but I feel ofended by the 'you' in this > > phrase. I didn'

Re: SCRIPT_NAME and PATH_INFO with extension mapping

2001-09-30 Thread Jon Stevens
on 9/30/01 7:16 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, I agree with you - but I feel ofended by the 'you' in this > phrase. I didn't removed it - I spent quite a bit of time and arguments to > keep it in. > > BTW, it has nothing to do with the HTTP spec ( which doesn't specif

Re: SCRIPT_NAME and PATH_INFO with extension mapping

2001-09-30 Thread cmanolache
On Sun, 30 Sep 2001, Jon Stevens wrote: > on 9/30/01 3:57 PM, "Ignacio J. Ortega" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > You lost, this URL does not work in IIS ( 404 ).. > > > > Ug. I guess so. JSP == ASP. :-( If you use extension mapping in velocity, it'll be the same, it has nothing to do with JSPs

Re: SCRIPT_NAME and PATH_INFO with extension mapping

2001-09-30 Thread cmanolache
On Sun, 30 Sep 2001, Jon Stevens wrote: > on 9/30/01 5:47 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > the conclusion was that the HTTP spec is wrong and we should > > follow the Servlet spec. > > That is complete BS. The servlet spec shouldn't 'override' what is defined > in the HTTP

Re: SCRIPT_NAME and PATH_INFO with extension mapping

2001-09-30 Thread Jon Stevens
on 9/30/01 3:57 PM, "Ignacio J. Ortega" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You lost, this URL does not work in IIS ( 404 ).. > Ug. I guess so. JSP == ASP. :-( -jon

RE: SCRIPT_NAME and PATH_INFO with extension mapping

2001-09-30 Thread Ignacio J. Ortega
> > I bet that a URL like this works: > > http://www.foo.com/MicrosoftIsBetterThanSun.asp/foo/bar > You lost, this URL does not work in IIS ( 404 ).. Saludos , Ignacio J. Ortega

SCRIPT_NAME and PATH_INFO with extension mapping

2001-09-30 Thread Jon Stevens
on 9/30/01 5:47 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > the conclusion was that the HTTP spec is wrong and we should > follow the Servlet spec. That is complete BS. The servlet spec shouldn't 'override' what is defined in the HTTP spec unless absolutely necessary. This is definitely