* Vincent Bray wrote:
> On 24/07/07, André Malo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It is, if you're doing it explicitly. Most people use [L] though, so it
> > doesn't matter very much. IIRC, if done implicitly, the [P] flag
> > finishs the set, the [R] flag doesn't. But I need to check against the
> >
On 7/23/07, Vincent Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Compatibility: The cookie-flag is available in Apache 2.0.40 and later
.. seems fairly irrelevant, given [H] and whatever other new tricks
RewriteRule has learned since then.
You've opened the barrel-of-worms we call mod_rewrite and you ex
On 23/07/07, Joshua Slive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
URL-path is the syntax I've tried to use elsewhere in the docs to
represent exactly this thing. See:
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/directive-dict.html#Syntax
URI Reference is no more correct than URL in my opinion.
So I'd just replace
On 24/07/07, André Malo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It is, if you're doing it explicitly. Most people use [L] though, so it
doesn't matter very much. IIRC, if done implicitly, the [P] flag finishs
the set, the [R] flag doesn't. But I need to check against the sources as
well :-)
RewriteEngine On
On 7/23/07, André Malo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Not that easy. I think, explaining the start (URL-path, absolute in server
context but relative to the .htaccess in directory context) and mentioning
the "current" part for further matches should do.
I don't think you want to get too complicate
On 24/07/07, Rich Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There's no policy on this. It's merely a function of the fact that
we're a volunteer organization, and people work on the stuff that we
care about. Consequently, the 1.3 docs have become more and more
abandoned, with only occasional serious error
* Vincent Bray wrote:
> On 23/07/07, André Malo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well.. it's not entirely true. It actually matches both. In
> > contrast to popular belief the particular word to mind here is
> > "current". Within a given set, mod_rewrite matches the current value of
> > r->uri
On Jul 22, 2007, at 10:33, Vincent Bray wrote:
On 22/07/07, Vincent Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Fixed in trunk and 2.2, thanks. Looks like somebody beat me to it
with 2.0 :-)
Ok, so I wasn't beaten too it, I just had another mislabeled WC for
2.2. I've committed this to 2.0 too now, but
On 23/07/07, André Malo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well.. it's not entirely true. It actually matches both. In contrast to
popular belief the particular word to mind here is "current". Within a
given set, mod_rewrite matches the current value of r->uri or r->filename,
I think (depending on se
* André Malo wrote:
> * Vincent Bray wrote:
> > While I'm on a bit of a roll, I'll mention that subject that strikes
> > fear in to the hearts of intrepid geeks, mod_rewrite and its docs.
> >
> > http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42898
> >
> > The url in the PR is for 1.3 but tru
On 7/23/07, Vincent Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
While I'm on a bit of a roll, I'll mention that subject that strikes
fear in to the hearts of intrepid geeks, mod_rewrite and its docs.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42898
The url in the PR is for 1.3 but trunk has the same
* Vincent Bray wrote:
> While I'm on a bit of a roll, I'll mention that subject that strikes
> fear in to the hearts of intrepid geeks, mod_rewrite and its docs.
>
> http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42898
>
> The url in the PR is for 1.3 but trunk has the same issue.
>
> What's t
While I'm on a bit of a roll, I'll mention that subject that strikes
fear in to the hearts of intrepid geeks, mod_rewrite and its docs.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42898
The url in the PR is for 1.3 but trunk has the same issue.
What's the correct term for the bit of the r
* Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Jul 23, 2007, at 1:31 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> > An argument can be made that something "has depreciated",
> > but it is never the case that something "has been depreciated".
>
> Heh, I should never say never this early on a Monday morning.
> A counter-example h
* Vincent Bray wrote:
> On 23/07/07, Joshua Slive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Optimally you should include both the "Backport r..." and the original
> > log message, but I don't think anyone will object to having just one
> > or the other. Check out the script at
> > people.apache.org:~slive/s
On 23/07/07, Joshua Slive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Optimally you should include both the "Backport r..." and the original
log message, but I don't think anyone will object to having just one
or the other. Check out the script at
people.apache.org:~slive/svn.merge
which I believe sets that up by
On 7/23/07, Vincent Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 23/07/07, Joshua Slive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/23/07, Vincent Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Any objections to this before I backport it for 2.x? It follows from
> > this thread:
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/ywy6lt
>
> Got to it.
On 23/07/07, Joshua Slive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/23/07, Vincent Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Any objections to this before I backport it for 2.x? It follows from
> this thread:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ywy6lt
Got to it.
Will do.
Regarding svn commit messages.. Clearly the dev@ guy
On 7/23/07, Vincent Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 23/07/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Author: noodl
> Date: Mon Jul 23 06:31:19 2007
> New Revision: 558718
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=558718
> Log:
> Demote use of AddType for cgi and remove redunda
On 23/07/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Author: noodl
Date: Mon Jul 23 06:31:19 2007
New Revision: 558718
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=558718
Log:
Demote use of AddType for cgi and remove redundant paragraph regarding
DOCUMENT_ROOT
Modified:
httpd/httpd/
On 23/07/07, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
s/wilcard/wildcard/;
Roy
Oops, thanks Mr F.
--
noodl
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Jul 23, 2007, at 1:30 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: noodl
Date: Mon Jul 23 01:30:32 2007
New Revision: 558654
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=558654
Log:
Backport 558651 from trunk
Modified:
httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/docs/manual/mod/core.html.en
httpd/httpd/br
On Jul 23, 2007, at 1:31 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
An argument can be made that something "has depreciated",
but it is never the case that something "has been depreciated".
Heh, I should never say never this early on a Monday morning.
A counter-example has already been provided, so that last s
On Jul 23, 2007, at 1:23 AM, André Malo wrote:
* Nóirín Plunkett wrote:
On 7/23/07, Chris Pepper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
===
--- mod_ssl.xml(revision 545655)
+++ mod_ssl.xml(working copy)
@@ -519,21 +519,21
* Nóirín Plunkett wrote:
> On 7/23/07, Chris Pepper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >===
> >
> > >--- mod_ssl.xml(revision 545655)
> > >+++ mod_ssl.xml(working copy)
> > >@@ -519,21 +519,21 @@
> > >
> > >+been depre
On 7/23/07, Chris Pepper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
===
>--- mod_ssl.xml(revision 545655)
>+++ mod_ssl.xml(working copy)
>@@ -519,21 +519,21 @@
>+been depreciated in recent years because of weaknesses in the se
26 matches
Mail list logo
