On 12/29/05, Colm MacCarthaigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [1] and [3] on their own are simply enough, [2] is the crazy part. > Does any of this make any sense?
I don't know enough about [2] to say if it's possible or not, but it makes sense at first glance. I'm highly in favor of [3], since it means that Paul and I don't need to implement that part of it ourselves as part of the fastcgi work, so go for it! ;-) -garrett
