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/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 > > > 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 electronic mail transmission may contain confidential information and is intended only for the person(s) named. Any use, copying or disclosure by any other person is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender via e-mail. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
