httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From (David Robinson)
Subject Re: Current status...
Date Thu, 14 Dec 1995 15:46:00 GMT
Ben wrote:
>On the subject of 2), although trapping self-inclusion is a good idea, I
>wonder about the semantics. Seems to me that /a/b/some-ssi/extra/bits is
>morally equivalent to /a/b/some-ssi?extra/bits, and the relative should
>therefore be relative to /a/b/some-ssi. Or shouldn't it? I've heard the
>"breaking existing sites" argument, and I have sympathy - we should make it
>flaggable, as in "SupportBrokenExtraPathBehaviour on", but I do not approve of
>the concept of perpetuating broken behaviour any more than is absolutely
>necessary, and certainly not to the exclusion of correct behaviour. It seems
>obvious to me that a relative path means "relative to me", not "relative to
>whatever path happened to invoke me".

However, if you use 'relative to me' then relative paths parsed on the
server will resolve differently to relative paths resolved by the client.
<!--#include virtual="../xxx" -->
<A HREF="../xxx">

might point to different objects.

It would be better to forbid extra data on the URL to a SSI document, but
we can't do that for compatibility reasons. However, this seems as good
a reason as any to drop SSI in favour of a newly designed server-parsed


View raw message