On Aug 11, 2005, at 5:58 PM, mso@oz.net wrote:

>> Should Quixote's publisher give the same result
>> when PATH_INFO is 'foo/bar' that it gives
>> when PATH_INFO is '/foo/bar' ?
>> I don't know what to think about this, but it does seem good to
>> do something other than trip on the assert.
>>
>
> Well, what else could "foo/bar" mean?  It's really the fault of the
> server, but we might as well make Quixote flexible for misplaced
> slashes,
> especially when the specs are not as clear as they should be.
>

I *suppose* that whenever the PATH_INFO is not a string
that starts with '/', you could return a permanent
redirect to SCRIPT_NAME + '/' + PATH_INFO
This would cover the empty case the same way as this odd case.