On Jul 24, 2008, at 2:18 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Ruediger Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On 07/24/2008 09:32 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 3:01 PM, Ruediger Pluem
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1, but who is behaving correctly currently mod_cgi or mod_cgid?
The BNF from Ken's CGI RFC site seems to support the 1.3/mod_cgi
interpretation (++ results in null strings in argv)
http://ken.coar.org/cgi/draft-coar-cgi-v11-03.html#5.0
search-string = search-word *( "+" search-word )
search-word = 1*schar
Doesn't this mean search-word must contain at least one schar?
So ++ would be invalid.
I misread what the * was attached to -- I agree with you (favoring
mod_cgid)
It makes more sense to think in terms of recreating the URI from
whatever is passed. The mod_cgid behavior is losing data if you
look at it that way. I don't know if it matters, but I would prefer
the old mod_cgi behavior be retained.
....Roy
