At 03:56 PM 7/11/2002, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: >"William A. Rowe, Jr." wrote: > > > > But not by default. That would be the exception, not the rule. > > The idea is to avoid namespace recursion, and unlike CGIs, most > > folks don't look at PATH_INFO in their SSIs. > >This smacks of a 'father knows best' attitude -- which historically >infuriates me. If it's dynamic, it's dynamic, so give it access >to all its data. *DON'T* force users (and people they ask for help) >into a guessing game about when to turn the option on.
And don't go spilling entire web trees from every static file resource, resulting in infinite recursion of a resource identifier ;-) This was a compromise. Short of pre-parsing the SSI for included CGI files or PATH_INFO references, we can't predict. Better docs about this? YES! I would agree 100% this isn't intuitive enough. Sorry if I feel somewhat strongly here. Just got blasted with a dozen hits last night for robots.txt by a.v., and I have only one dns entry registered to that box. Sure, you -can- include anything in an SSI, but should the majority default to recursion or no recursion? To default in favor of a non-infinitely-recursing resource is a good thing, IMHO. Do others care to shed new light in this year old debate? Bill