Phillip wrote: > At 03:36 PM 12/19/2006 -0800, Jason Kirtland wrote: >> To my reading, PEP 333 implies that a server should plop the >> Request-URI into PATH_INFO, and it should store it there >> unmolested. > > That's only the case if the address of the application is the > root of the server, and then only if the request URI is a path, > rather than an absolute URI.
What would a server do with an absolute URI vs. abs_path, if not place it in PATH_INFO? Or '*', for that matter? Should these types of requests be handleable by a WSGI stack? Apache augments the CGI environment with a REQUEST_URI- if WSGI had one of these I guess I'd expect to see non-path URIs there. > Note that a CGI-to-WSGI or FastCGI-to-WSGI gateway (or a piece of > routing middleware) will have a SCRIPT_NAME that designates the > location of the target application. [...] Agreed; see the footnote in my post. A gateway doesn't necessarily have or want access to the Request-URI. I think the anti-fiddling assertion applies here as well though- a WSGI gateway server shouldn't pro-actively normalize SCRIPT_NAME or PATH_INFO that it's pulling from upstream. -Jason _______________________________________________ Web-SIG mailing list Web-SIG@python.org Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/archive%40mail-archive.com