Hello, Aaron.
Aaron said:
> I think path dispatch considerations do not belong at the level
> of the WSGI spec. Higher level layers should worry about
> exactly how the URL gets dispatched within the application.
I agree -- That's why I believe the wsgiorg.routing_args Specification is the
righ
"whiff.entry_point" and "whiff.template_path" etc.
Or maybe I misunderstand something. -- Aaron Watters
--- On Wed, 1/6/10, Gustavo Narea wrote:
> From: Gustavo Narea
> Subject: Re: [Web-SIG] wsgiorg.routing_path addition to the
> wsgiorg.routing_args Specifica
Is it a really bad suggestion? :(
- G.
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:31 PM, Gustavo Narea wrote:
> Hello everybody.
>
> The current wsgiorg.routing_args specification requires that "Portions of
> the
> path that have been parsed should still be moved to SCRIPT_NAME (and
> removed
> from PATH_INFO)
Hello everybody.
The current wsgiorg.routing_args specification requires that "Portions of the
path that have been parsed should still be moved to SCRIPT_NAME (and removed
from PATH_INFO)", but:
1.- That's against semantics. According to PEP 333 and the CGI spec,
SCRIPT_NAME and PATH_INFO mus
