Re: your mail

Charles Henrich ([email protected])
Tue, 28 Dec 1993 18:50:58 -0500 (EST)

> Using Charles Henrich's suggested syntax, for example, URLs like
>
> http://host/path/script;
> http://host/path/script;foo
> http://host/path/script;foo?bar
>
> would all be scripts. I.e. the presence of the ';' indicates it is
> executable. An trailing ';' just indicates an empty PATH_INFO.

Actually, no I wouldnt suggest using a ';' to represent executable. The
current manner to determine if a script is a script is "good enough". In fact
using the ';' to determine if a script was would disallow most of what Im
doing. I use the inlined include facility of NCSA's server extensivly. I want
the server to return

http://host/path/document

And then the document calls an inlined include which can then decipher the ';'
attributes, making all sorts of interesting things possible.

I'd like to say, this syntax could be *in addition* to the current method, it
doesnt need to replace it. Im finding a situation here where the forced
"stat'ing" of non-existant files to be distasteful, wasteful, and a very
potential problem with servers that are heavily utilized.

-Crh

Charles Henrich Michigan State University [email protected]

http://rs560.msu.edu/~henrich/