> OK, good -- I think we can write this one off as a Xitami bug that has
> since been fixed.  Gene, if you're out there, do you remember which
> version of Xitami you were using six months ago?

I was using the production release (2.4d9 I think).

> Anyways, it looks like that patch is not going in.  Case closed (unless
> another Xitami user steps forward with more details).

Jim is right, there is no problem using CGI - it works just the way it
should.

The problem I encountered occurred while using LRWP, which seems to handle
the PATH_INFO and SCRIPT_NAME variables differently.  My patch worked when
running through LRWP, but would have broken cgi scripts (not good).

To effectively use LRWP would require building a much more robust server
(something like the SCGI server).  A handler script could then be written to
make the changes to the PATH_INFO and SCRIPT_NAME variables.  The
quixote_handler in the SCGI package does something similar.

Gene