Re: Patch go boom...

["Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>]

> I don't like this patch ;)  But I wonder if we all agree about what URLs
> really mean.  For my argument a URL != UNIX file, and I believe we'd be
> limiting the flexibility of the server by adding this new behaviour.

URL != File.  However, if by chance a particular URL == File and File is
incapable of making use of extra path, then any extra path is bad.
In fact, I would extend that to SSI and only allow it for ASIS and CGI,
if I thought I could get away with it.  Same goes for / vs /index.html
but I know I can't get away with that one.

Why is it bad?  Because you can't index sites with infinite URLs.

> Any offers?  Perhaps Roy F's got a clue here?

Two.   Col. Mustard is in the Library with a lead pipe.

.....Roy    ;-)

Re: Patch go boom...

[Alexei Kosut <ak...@nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us>]

On Wed, 11 Oct 1995, Tony Sanders wrote:

> In fact, I really wish there was an analog standard to `?' for
> extra PATH_INFO so that clients could distinguish the document part
> from their arguments (that would allow, among other things, browsers
> to provide an interface for jumping back to "top" of an interface
> without the user having to manually cut and paste the URL).

No other servers that I'm aware of do, but WebSTAR/MacHTTP does use 
$ as the path info seperator instead of /

Just a thought.

--/ Alexei Kosut <ak...@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. /--------------

Re: Patch go boom...

[Tony Sanders <sa...@bsdi.com>]

"Roy T. Fielding" writes:
> URL != File.  However, if by chance a particular URL == File and File is
...
> Why is it bad?  Because you can't index sites with infinite URLs.

I would very much like it if /index.html were illegal when / is
specified to be the the canonical form for that document (the
current aliasing problem is really a major pain).  I definitely
believe that a single document should have a single name.

In fact, I really wish there was an analog standard to `?' for
extra PATH_INFO so that clients could distinguish the document part
from their arguments (that would allow, among other things, browsers
to provide an interface for jumping back to "top" of an interface
without the user having to manually cut and paste the URL).