Apache HTTP Server 2.0 Documentation Status File.
Last modified: $Date: 2004-11-21 09:35:21 -0500 (Sun, 21 Nov 2004) $
For more information on how to contribute to the Apache Documentation
Project, please see http://httpd.apache.org/docs-project/
This document contains only documentation issues r
On 11/8/06, Brad Nicholes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The directive is defined as RSRC_CONF which basically says that it must exist outside of a
or . Within a virtual host should be fine.
Thanks,
When I try in I get this error message:
spork:~/Services/httpd noodl$ ./bin/apachectl configt
>>> On 11/8/2006 at 3:25 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Vincent Bray"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Patch to the mod_authn_alias docs. Could somebody confirm that
> AuthnProviderAlias isn't permitted in vhost context?
>
> The patch is to the 2.2 branch, that being the only relevant b
Hi,
Patch to the mod_authn_alias docs. Could somebody confirm that
AuthnProviderAlias isn't permitted in vhost context?
The patch is to the 2.2 branch, that being the only relevant branch
for this module.
Index: docs/manual/mod/mod_authn_alias.xml
===
On 11/8/06, Chris Pepper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 9:40 AM -0500 2006/11/08, Joshua Slive wrote:
>On 11/4/06, Chris Pepper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Note that Allow and Deny directives are processed in
>>ascending order, unlike a typical firewall, where only the
>>first match counts.
>
>
At 9:40 AM -0500 2006/11/08, Joshua Slive wrote:
On 11/4/06, Chris Pepper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Note that Allow and Deny directives are processed in
ascending order, unlike a typical firewall, where only the
first match counts.
That's all fine with me. But I really don't find "in ascend
On 11/4/06, Chris Pepper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Note that Allow and Deny directives are processed in
ascending order, unlike a typical firewall, where only the
first match counts.
That's all fine with me. But I really don't find "in ascending order"
to mean anything in particular. Is tha
On 11/8/06, Lars Eilebrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
According to Chris:
> Is it a known and accepted fact that FancyIndexing generates
> invalid HTML? FancyIndexing puts invalid tags inside the block.
> I'm inclined to report it, but perhaps it's accepted for improved
> appearance. If
According to Chris:
> Is it a known and accepted fact that FancyIndexing generates
> invalid HTML? FancyIndexing puts invalid tags inside the block.
> I'm inclined to report it, but perhaps it's accepted for improved
> appearance. If that's so, FancyIndexing shouldn't be on by default
>
