Manlio Perillo wrote:
> I know that this is a "legal detail", but I don't see any copyright
> notices in the specs at http://wsgi.org/wsgi/Specifications/
>
>
> Maybe they should be added.
I added a general note that everything there is public domain, as I
think that fits the goals of that sec
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 09:15 AM 1/23/2008 -0800, Robert Brewer wrote:
>> I consider it a bug in both, and the difficulty level of changing the
>> CGI behavior really has no bearing on our decision to do better with
>> WSGI. I think it's important that we allow the full range of URI's to be
>> a
Luis Bruno wrote:
>> I made note of this issue on the WSGI 2.0 ideas page
> Didn't find it here: http://wsgi.org/wsgi/WSGI_2.0>. Should I look
> elsewhere?
I thought I had added it there, but wrote that when I was offline and
couldn't check. I added a section about it (a very brief section,
t
Brian Smith ha scritto:
> Manlio Perillo wrote:
>> As an example, I would like to use the code in the example for the
>> routing_args specification.
>
> Manlio,
>
> Are you planning to implement the routing_args specification directly in
> NGinx's mod_wsgi?
No, of course!
I'm writing a (yet a
Manlio Perillo wrote:
> As an example, I would like to use the code in the example for the
> routing_args specification.
Manlio,
Are you planning to implement the routing_args specification directly in
NGinx's mod_wsgi? I think doing so is a really bad idea--routing_args
should be set and manipu
At 09:15 AM 1/23/2008 -0800, Robert Brewer wrote:
>I consider it a bug in both, and the difficulty level of changing the
>CGI behavior really has no bearing on our decision to do better with
>WSGI. I think it's important that we allow the full range of URI's to be
>accepted. If you go and stick Apa
Hi.
I know that this is a "legal detail", but I don't see any copyright
notices in the specs at http://wsgi.org/wsgi/Specifications/
Maybe they should be added.
As an example, I would like to use the code in the example for the
routing_args specification.
Thanks Manlio Perillo
___
James Y Knight wrote:
> ...as there is simply no way to represent "some%2Fthing/
> shallow/" with PATH_INFO, as specified in the CGI spec, the only
> alternative is to reject the request. This is what the major servers
> do today.
>
> > Anyone else thinks it's a bug in WSGI too?
>
> WSGI is based
