httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From d...@ast.cam.ac.uk (David Robinson)
Subject Re: indexing suggestion (ATTN NCSA: possible 1.4 bug...)
Date Mon, 17 Apr 1995 17:02:00 GMT
Rst wrote:
>Here is what the CGI docs have to say about PATH_INFO:
>
><LI> <CODE>PATH_INFO</CODE> <P> 
>    The extra path information, as given by the client. In other
>    words, scripts can be accessed by their virtual pathname, followed
>    by extra information at the end of this path. The extra
>    information is sent as PATH_INFO. This information should be
>    decoded by the server if it comes from a URL before it is passed
>    to the CGI script.<P>
>
I though RobH was asking about CGI scripts in the context of server-side
includes, which this does not mention. 

>Note that it doesn't say "...followed by extra information... The
>extra information is sent as PATH_INFO, unless it happens to consist
>entirely of '/' characters, in which case we do some other thing with
>it".

And it doesn't say we couldn't....

In fact, treating null path segments specially would be quite legitimate.
httpd already imposes some semantics on the URL path, part of which
is sent to the CGI script as PATH_INFO. Consider: we parse '/../' in both the
document URI part and the PATH_INFO, removing it and the previous path
segment. Similarly, httpd ignores '//' in the doucment URI part, so maybe it
should also in the PATH_INFO ?  8-)

 David.

Mime
View raw message