httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew <and...@aaaaaaaa.demon.co.uk>
Subject Re: mod_cgi.c (un)smartness (fwd)
Date Sun, 24 Dec 1995 12:41:53 GMT
> On Sat, 23 Dec 1995, Andrew Wilson wrote:
> 
> > I've verified this.  Richard originally gave us the r0ng URL to
> > gosee.  The correct URL exhibiting this weirdness is:
> 
> I disagree that it's weirdness. It's what's commonly known as a feature. 
> At least, I consider it suck. To recap (unless I missed something), the
> 'unsmartness' is that when a CGI returns sends
> 
> Location: /whatever
> 
> the server internally redirects to /whatever, sends /whatever, and then 
> (golly gosh gee whiz) relative links don't work. 

Understood.  It would be better to say that the use of Location:
(in a redirecting cgi script) prevents the use of relative links
in any redirected-to page.  This is something that experience has
taught us - we know they don't work so we don't use them.  I'm
questioning the 'tradeoff' between being able to use Location: at
all and having to ensure that an additional layer of idiotic rules
dictates what can and cannot be placed inside the redirected-to
html page.

> Complaining about this 
> is sorta like wrapping batteries in aluminum foil, putting them in the 
> freezer to 'preserve' them, and then complaining to the manufactuerer of 
> the freezer when the batteries don't work.

Well, Apache doesn't carry any discalaimers to this effect.  I
suppose the only place that would make mention of Location:'s impact
would be the CGI specification pages (wherever they are).

> I mean, really. If you don't want that to happen, don't do it. No one is 
> forcing anyone to use internal redirects. If you use them, presumably you 
> can understand what they do, and write your scripts and pages 
> accordingly. 

Evidence is to the contrary.

> If it breaks relative links (which it does, in many cases), 
> then don't use relative links!
> 
> This feature is *very* handy, and I use it all the time.

Location: *is* very handy and my argument is not with the use of
Location:.  My argument is simply that *if* the use of Location:
implies that the cgi-bin scrip author intended the browser to be
redirected to another web-page then *that* web page should be
constructed to the same rules as all others and without reference
to some bizarre side-effect of the way Apache tries to save bandwidth
by dereferencing internal redirection of URLs.

I'm not saying that dereferncing is a bogus technique, just that
as it stands it is unable to specify a working BASE from which
relative links may be sourced.  The subject isn't just concerned
with Apache, clearly the specification of HTTP/1.0 and URL semantics
plays a part as well.

We can all *live* with this.  But I think it's a bit like living
with a sprained ankle.

> 
> --/ Alexei Kosut <akosut@nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us> /--------/ Lefler on IRC
> ----------------------------/ <http://www.nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us/~akosut/>
> The viewpoints expressed above are entirely false, and in no way
> represent Alexei Kosut nor any other person or entity. /--------------

Cheers,
Ay.


Mime
View raw message