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 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? :) I'm a member of JSR-053. I will work to change it for the next release of the spec. Needless to say, this has a serious impact on Turbine's ability to function. It is complete bullshit that it works fine if defined through a servlet, but not with extension mapping. This works: http://www.foo.com/context/servlet/Turbine/template/Foo.vm This doesn't: http://www.foo.com/context/Foo.vm/bar/ack As a result, there is no way for Turbine to work properly with extension mapping because it relies on passing information in the PATH_INFO and not QUERY_STRING because of the need for search engines to be able to archive website information. -jon
