At 11:30 AM 10/12/01 -0700, Russell Blank wrote:
>My last message was in error. The error box was not displaying on the
>browser, but on the server. However, I believe I discovered the problem
>with wkcgi.exe. My log files showed a get instead of a post, a change in
>behavior from the webkit.cg
My last message was in error. The error box was not displaying on the
browser, but on the server. However, I believe I discovered the problem
with wkcgi.exe. My log files showed a get instead of a post, a change in
behavior from the webkit.cgi and mod_webkit. The webkit.cgi and mod_webkit
for
At 10:52 AM 10/12/01 -0700, Russell Blank wrote:
>Thank you very much for your help with the wkcgi.exe. IIS is extremely
>faster and I am able to post a page. However, I am trying to post a page
>with over 35 key/value pairs and I am receiving the attached error (as a
>bitmap). This occurs on I
Hello Jay
On Fri, 12 Oct 2001, Love, Jay wrote:
> Yeah, I've has this in the back of my head for a while that we need to
> handle these. We should just map it to the standard GET handler for now, I
> think. I don't think it'll do any damage to send a body in response, but
> someone should verif
When I was developing cache appliances returning a full page on a HEAD would crash
some engines, but that was considered a 'bug'.
We tested malformed responses and one of them was to send a full page in response to a
HEAD.
It should be OK, but I would rather see some type of class method such a
Yeah, I've has this in the back of my head for a while that we need to
handle these. We should just map it to the standard GET handler for now, I
think. I don't think it'll do any damage to send a body in response, but
someone should verify that.
Jay
> -Original Message-
> From: Chuck
Hi Chuck Esterbrook,
on 11-Oct-2001 you wrote:
> At 01:07 AM 10/12/2001 +0200, Fionn Behrens wrote:
> I'm curious if you could pass along the names of those browsers? It would
> be interesting to check my logs for them and possibly check for them in
> servlets. I'm not sure exactly what I'll
Chuck Esterbrook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>The idea behind externalId is that you could safely use it externally to
>refer to a user. Safely means that 1. it would be hard for someone to guess
>(and therefore impersonate another user) and 2. would not reveal private
>information about the u
