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 generally a bigger PITA than whatever was wrong with the first spec.
In any case, I would have to agree that we cannot blatantly ignore something that is explicitly disallowed in the servlet spec. One reasonable solution that comes to mind would be to follow the servlet/jsp spec for servlets and jsp, and to follow the HTML spec for static content. But then again, it's a little strange to have differing behaviors based on the type of content being served. Throw mapping in there, and it muddies the waters even more. I just think that there is a point to be made, however, that any static content being served up by TC does not conform to the HTML spec. Did I mention that this is a really unfortunate problem? :) Quoting Bill Barker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 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. > <spec-quote> > If the last segment in URL path contains an extension (e.g .jsp) the > servlet > container will try to match a servlet that handles requests for the > extension. An extension is defined as the part of the last segment after > the > last '.' character. > </spec-quote> > 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: 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 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 not > a > > necessary case, but instead an act of stupidity. > > > > > Workaround - declare each page with exact mappings in web.xml. > > > > Making me specify each and every page in my webapp in the web.xml is > just > > plain BS. > > > > I bet that a URL like this works: > > > > http://www.foo.com/MicrosoftIsBetterThanSun.asp/foo/bar > > > > I *know* that this URL works: > > > > http://www.foo.com/PHPIsBetterThanJSP.php/foo/bar > > > > Essentially, what you are doing by removing this capability is > preventing > > the SCRIPT_NAME from having PATH_INFO and that is not right according > to > the > > HTTP spec. I don't think that a Servlet container can override the > behavior > > of the HTTP spec and still claim HTTP compliance. > > > > -jon > > > > > > > *----* > > This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) listed above > > as the intended recipient(s), and may contain information that is > PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not an intended recipient, > you may not read, copy, or distribute this message or any attachment. > > If you received this communication in error, please notify us > immediately > by e-mail and then delete all copies of this message and any > attachments. > > > In addition you should be aware that ordinary (unencrypted) e-mail sent > > through the Internet is not secure. Do not send confidential or > sensitive > information, such as social security numbers, account numbers, personal > > identification numbers and passwords, to us via ordinary (unencrypted) > > e-mail. > - Christopher /** * Pleurez, pleurez, mes yeux, et fondez vous en eau! * La moitié de ma vie a mis l'autre au tombeau. * ---Corneille */
