Re: Re: Browser dependent CGI script failure?

Some browsers fill out the script name automatically, some don't.

Like what browser? All browsers should support this. It's a standard relative uri, perfectly legal. See http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1738.txt http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt.

Comment on Re: Re: Browser dependent CGI script failure?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Browser dependent CGI script failure? by wolfi (Scribe) on Apr 14, 2004 at 06:57 UTC
uhm... RFCs are not law - and ultimately, it is up to the browser manufacturers, whether they adhere to them or not. (if browsers all followed the standards - webdesigners wouldn't be having as many compatibility discussions.)	[reply]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Browser dependent CGI script failure? by BUU (Prior) on Apr 14, 2004 at 07:50 UTC
You are using a relative URL of a form that is not strictly standard It's a standard relative uri, perfectly legal.	[reply]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Browser dependent CGI script failure? by Anonymous Monk on Apr 14, 2004 at 08:33 UTC
That's why I ask to give an example. Unless it's some homemade browser, it'll work.	[reply]
Re: Re: Re: Browser dependent CGI script failure? by iburrell (Chaplain) on Apr 14, 2004 at 20:03 UTC
It is open to interpretation if it is a legal relative URI. The relativeURI grammar in RFC 2396 defines that the relative path must have at least a single character before the query string. However, the examples include '?y' as a relative URL. RFC 1808 allows just a query string and specified the resolution rules for it.	[reply]