Joe Gregorio wrote: > I am positive on the spec, but I do have one question: > > What is the justification for altering the values > of SCRIPT_NAME and PATH_INFO? > > At the very least this breaks conformance > with RFC 3875[1], which PEP 333 references > normatively. > > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3875
Why is this a problem? I put in the note about SCRIPT_NAME/PATH_INFO, because generally SCRIPT_NAME represents the consumed path. Dispatchers typically consume the path when they do their dispatching. If you leave SCRIPT_NAME, you are presuming that the application has knowledge of how the dispatcher works. The whole point of the spec is that consumers don't need to know how the variables got there. -- Ian Bicking | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://blog.ianbicking.org _______________________________________________ Web-SIG mailing list Web-SIG@python.org Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/archive%40mail-archive.com
