[Web-SIG] routing_args (was url_vars)
ianb at colorstudy.com
Mon Nov 13 20:45:13 CET 2006
Joe Gregorio wrote:
> I am positive on the spec, but I do have one question:
> What is the justification for altering the values
> of SCRIPT_NAME and PATH_INFO?
> At the very least this breaks conformance
> with RFC 3875, which PEP 333 references
Why is this a problem?
I put in the note about SCRIPT_NAME/PATH_INFO, because generally
SCRIPT_NAME represents the consumed path. Dispatchers typically consume
the path when they do their dispatching.
If you leave SCRIPT_NAME, you are presuming that the application has
knowledge of how the dispatcher works. The whole point of the spec is
that consumers don't need to know how the variables got there.
Ian Bicking | ianb at colorstudy.com | http://blog.ianbicking.org
More information about the Web-SIG