Return-Path: owner-new-httpd
Received: by taz.hyperreal.com (8.6.10/8.6.5) id PAA18010;
 Sun, 16 Apr 1995 15:34:29 -0700
Received: from life.ai.mit.edu by taz.hyperreal.com (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP
 id PAA18005; Sun, 16 Apr 1995 15:34:27 -0700
Received: from volterra (volterra.ai.mit.edu) by life.ai.mit.edu (4.1/AI-4.10)
 for new-httpd@hyperreal.com id AA21827; Sun, 16 Apr 95 18:34:27 EDT
From: rst@ai.mit.edu (Robert S. Thau)
Received: by volterra (4.1/AI-4.10) id AA01447; Sun, 16 Apr 95 18:34:26 EDT
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 95 18:34:26 EDT
Message-Id: <9504162234.AA01447@volterra>
To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
Cc: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
In-Reply-To: <199504161804.AA003095472@ooo.lanl.gov> (message from Rob Hartill
 on Sun, 16 Apr 95 12:04:32 MDT)
Subject: Re: indexing suggestion
Sender: owner-new-httpd@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org

   From: Rob Hartill <hartill@ooo.lanl.gov>
   Date: Sun, 16 Apr 95 12:04:32 MDT

   > 
   >    Re PATH_INFO; if /dir/file.ext is a regular (unix) file, then accessing
   >    /dir/file.ext/path_info will fail.
   > 
   > Not currently --- the PATH_INFO is simply ignored in this case.  I
   > personally see no compelling reason to change this, although as we all
   > will recall, Rob H. vehemently disagrees.  However, I do think that
   > PATH_INFO should clearly be allowed anywhere that a CGI script might
   > get into the mix.

   I can't follow this discussion, perhaps because I just got out
   of bed,  so I'm lost as to what I vehemently disagreed to here. 
   Please remind me.

If I remember right, you were fairly insistent earlier on that
/dir/file.ext/ was "incorrect" and should be bounced with a 404;
current behavior (as I indicated above) is simply to retrieve the file
in this case and ignore the '/' (which is a simple case of the general
/dir/file.ext/path/info).

rst