----
[[!template id=gitbranch branch=smcv/https author="[[smcv]]"]]
-[[!tag patch]]
For a while I've been using a configuration where each wiki has a HTTP and
a HTTPS mirror, and updating one automatically updates the other, but
> both url and cgiurl to use `https://secure.foo.com/...` and rely on
> relative links to keep users of `http://insecure.foo.com/` on http until
> they need to use the cgi?
->
+
+>> My problem with that is that uses of the CGI aren't all equal (and that
+>> the CA model is broken). You could put CGI uses in two classes:
+>>
+>> - websetup and other "serious" things (for the sites I'm running, which
+>> aren't very wiki-like, editing pages is also in this class).
+>> I'd like to be able to let privileged users log in over
+>> https with httpauth (or possibly even a client certificate), and I don't
+>> mind teaching these few people how to do the necessary contortions to
+>> enable something like CACert.
+>>
+>> - Random users making limited use of the CGI: do=goto, do=404, and
+>> commenting with an OpenID. I don't think it's realistic to expect
+>> users to jump through all the CA hoops to get CACert installed for that,
+>> which leaves their browsers being actively obstructive, unless I either
+>> pay the CA tax (per subdomain) to get "real" certificates, or use plain
+>> http.
+>>
+>> On a more wiki-like wiki, the second group would include normal page edits.
+>>
+>>> I see your use case. It still seems to me that for the more common
+>>> case where CA tax has been paid (getting a cert that is valid for
+>>> multiple subdomains should be doable?), having anything going through the
+>>> cgiurl upgrade to https would be ok. In that case, http is just an
+>>> optimisation for low-value, high-aggregate-bandwidth type uses, so a
+>>> little extra https on the side is not a big deal. --[[Joey]]
+>>
+>> Perhaps I'm doing this backwards, and instead of having the master
+>> `url`/`cgiurl` be the HTTP version and providing tweakables to override
+>> these with HTTPS, I should be overriding particular uses to plain HTTP...
+>>
+>> --[[smcv]]
+>>>
+>>> Maybe, or I wonder if you could just use RewriteEngine for such selective
+>>> up/downgrading. Match on `do=(edit|create|prefs)`. --[[Joey]]
+
> I'm unconvinced.
>
> `Ikiwiki::baseurl()."foo"` just seems to be asking for trouble,
> ie being accidentially written as `IkiWiki::baseurl("foo")`,
> which will fail when foo is not a page, but some file.
->
+
+>> That's a good point. --s
+
> I see multiple places (inline.pm, meta.pm, poll.pm, recentchanges.pm)
> where it will now put the https url into a static page if the build
> happens to be done by the cgi accessed via https, but not otherwise.
> I would rather not have to audit for such problems going forward.
->
-> --[[Joey]]
+
+>> Yes, that's a problem with this approach (either way round). Perhaps
+>> making it easier to run two mostly-synched copies like I was previously
+>> doing is the only solution... --s
+
+----
+
+**warning: untested branch ** [[!template id=gitbranch branch=smcv/localurl author="[[smcv]]"]]
+
+OK, here's an alternative approach, closer in spirit to what was initially
+requested. I haven't tested this at all (it's getting rather late in UK time)
+and it will probably be rebased later, but I've referenced it here as a proof of
+concept.
+
+The idea is that in the common case, the CGI and the pages will reside on the
+same server, so they can use "semi-absolute" URLs (`/ikiwiki.cgi`, `/style.css`,
+`/bugs/done`) to refer to each other. My branch adds config options which
+could be set as follows for ikiwiki.info or any branchable.com site:
+
+* local_url: /
+* local_cgiurl: /ikiwiki.cgi
+
+Most redirects, form actions, links etc. can safely use this form rather than
+the fully-absolute URL. If not configured, these options default to the
+corresponding absolute URL, which is would also be correct for unusual sites
+where the CGI and the pages aren't on the same server.
+
+(In theory you could use things like `//static.example.com/wiki/` and
+`//dynamic.example.com/ikiwiki.cgi` to preserve choice of http/https
+while switching server, but I don't know how consistently browsers
+suppot that.)
+
+"local" here is short for "locally valid", because these URLs are neither
+fully relative nor fully absolute, and there doesn't seem to be a good name
+for them...