[Web-SIG] routing_args (was url_vars)

[Ian Bicking]

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[1], which PEP 333 references
> normatively.
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3875

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