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
: 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
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
As far as I can tell, the HTTP and HTML specs are completely silent on this.
The CGI spec talks about PATH_INFO et al, but doesn't seem to address
extension mapping.
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/in
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
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
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
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 they
thought the HTML spec was wrong or not. Conflicting specs are general
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) the servlet
container will try to match a servlet that handles request
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'
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
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
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
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
>
> 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
15 matches
Mail list logo
