Re: docs on coexisting MP1 and MP2?

2005-10-17 Thread Philip M. Gollucci
Geoffrey Young wrote: I'm still a little curious if there are any pitfalls to having both installed on the same machine there shouldn't be, provided you use a recent version and don't override the checks in Makefile.PL. The only big gotcha I can think of would be constants if you want the sam

Re: docs on coexisting MP1 and MP2?

2005-10-17 Thread Geoffrey Young
> I'm still a little curious if there are any pitfalls to having both > installed on the same machine there shouldn't be, provided you use a recent version and don't override the checks in Makefile.PL. --Geoff

Re: docs on coexisting MP1 and MP2?

2005-10-15 Thread Chris Winters
On 10/15/05, Chris Winters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've been scouring the MP2 docs but can't find out whether I can have > MP1 and MP2 safely installed on the same machine. Does anything exist > on this? > > Why I'm asking: I've got MP 1.29 and 2.0.2-RC2 installed, plus the > latest libapreq2.

Re: Docs/User Guide: code sample incorrect in "Input and Output Filters"?

2005-06-07 Thread Philippe M. Chiasson
Matt Hahnfeld wrote: > I was going through the filters documentation for mod_perl 2.0 here: > > http://perl.apache.org/docs/2.0/user/handlers/filters.html > > Under "All-in-one" filter, there's some source code for Dump.pm. Run > on my system under mod_perl 2.0.0 and Apache 2.0.54, it returns t

Re: Docs error?

2005-05-09 Thread Stas Bekman
Stas Bekman wrote: Carl Johnstone wrote: I'd suggest rewording the "answer" to something like: In a URL which contains a query string, if the string has multiple parts separated by ampersands and it contains a key named "reg", for example http://example.com/foo.pl?foo=bar®=foobar

Re: Docs error?

2005-04-26 Thread Ron Savage
Hi Folks >carl was saying that if you put a literal >'http://example.com/foo.pl?foo=bar®=foobar' in your html _that_ is the >cause of the problem - unescaped ampersands in url links are not allowed, so >the literal url in user html should be >'http://example.com/foo.pl?foo=bar®=foobar'. Sorry,

Re: Docs error?

2005-04-26 Thread Trond Michelsen
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 10:31:42AM -0400, Stas Bekman wrote: >>> Since when unescaped & in the QUERY_STRING part of the URL are not allowed? >> I dunno the specifics, but if you try using the w3c validator you end up >> with something like this >> reference not terminated by REFC delimiter >> h

Re: Docs error?

2005-04-26 Thread Stas Bekman
Carl Johnstone wrote: I'd suggest rewording the "answer" to something like: In a URL which contains a query string, if the string has multiple parts separated by ampersands and it contains a key named "reg", for example http://example.com/foo.pl?foo=bar®=foobar, then some browser

Re: Docs error?

2005-04-26 Thread Carl Johnstone
OK, in which case it must be some relatively recent change, since an unescaped & in the QUERY_STRING was a valid separator. A pointer to the relevant RFC would be nice so we can add that to the URL that started this thread. Here? http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/appendix/notes.htm

Re: Docs error?

2005-04-26 Thread Stas Bekman
Steve Hay wrote: Stas Bekman wrote: Geoffrey Young wrote: Since when unescaped & in the QUERY_STRING part of the URL are not allowed? I dunno the specifics, but if you try using the w3c validator you end up with something like this reference not terminated by REFC delimiter http://example.c

Re: Docs error?

2005-04-26 Thread Steve Hay
Stas Bekman wrote: >Geoffrey Young wrote: > > >>>Since when unescaped & in the QUERY_STRING part of the URL are not allowed? >>> >>> >>I dunno the specifics, but if you try using the w3c validator you end up >>with something like this >> >> reference not terminated by REFC delimiter >> >>

Re: Docs error?

2005-04-26 Thread Stas Bekman
Geoffrey Young wrote: Oh, I see, I thought you were talking a bug in the docs building system. But if you write: 'http://example.com/foo.pl?foo=bar®=foobar'. There is no problem whatsover. Since there is no ® here. exactly :) Since when unescaped & in the QUERY_STRING part of the URL are not

Re: Docs error?

2005-04-26 Thread Geoffrey Young
> Oh, I see, I thought you were talking a bug in the docs building system. > > But if you write: > > 'http://example.com/foo.pl?foo=bar®=foobar'. > > There is no problem whatsover. Since there is no ® here. exactly :) > > Since when unescaped & in the QUERY_STRING part of the URL are no

Re: Docs error?

2005-04-26 Thread Stas Bekman
Geoffrey Young wrote: Beg your pardon? Have you looked at the HTML source code? it goes: http://example.com/foo.pl?foo=bar®=foobar";>http://example.com/foo.pl?foo=bar®=foobar I think what carl was saying was that the source of the bug in the discussion was incorrect, not in how we render the

Re: Docs error?

2005-04-26 Thread Geoffrey Young
> Beg your pardon? Have you looked at the HTML source code? it goes: > > href="http://example.com/foo.pl?foo=bar®=foobar";>http://example.com/foo.pl?foo=bar®=foobar I think what carl was saying was that the source of the bug in the discussion was incorrect, not in how we render the page o

Re: Docs error?

2005-04-26 Thread Stas Bekman
Geoffrey Young wrote: Carl Johnstone wrote: On: http://perl.apache.org/docs/tutorials/client/browserbugs/browserbugs.html It talks about browsers misreading URLs like: http://example.com/foo.pl?foo=bar®=foobar Presuming this is within a HTML page e.g.: http://example.com/foo.pl?foo=bar®=foobar";> .

Re: Docs error?

2005-04-26 Thread Geoffrey Young
Carl Johnstone wrote: > > On: > http://perl.apache.org/docs/tutorials/client/browserbugs/browserbugs.html > > > It talks about browsers misreading URLs like: > > http://example.com/foo.pl?foo=bar®=foobar > > Presuming this is within a HTML page e.g.: > > http://example.com/foo.pl?foo=bar®=f

Re: docs

2004-06-09 Thread Chris
On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 07:09:16 -0700, Stas Bekman wrote > Chris wrote: > > On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 06:01:12 -0700, Stas Bekman wrote > > > >>Chris Shiflett wrote: > >> > >>Alternatively, someone may want to start a wiki project where people > >>can dump anythings they want, and then we can merge some o

Re: docs

2004-06-09 Thread Stas Bekman
Chris wrote: On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 06:01:12 -0700, Stas Bekman wrote Chris Shiflett wrote: Alternatively, someone may want to start a wiki project where people can dump anythings they want, and then we can merge some of those notes back into the docs. Right then, unless someone comes up with somet

Re: docs

2004-06-09 Thread Chris
On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 06:01:12 -0700, Stas Bekman wrote > Chris Shiflett wrote: > > Alternatively, someone may want to start a wiki project where people > can dump anythings they want, and then we can merge some of those > notes back into the docs. Right then, unless someone comes up with somethi

Re: docs

2004-06-09 Thread Stas Bekman
Chris Shiflett wrote: --- Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 2) docs need to have user comments. I'm not sure it's a good idea. We already have a way too much documentation. Instead of making it even harder for users to find things, one should take the existing docs and improve them, rather the

Re: docs

2004-06-09 Thread Chris Shiflett
--- Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2) docs need to have user comments. > > I'm not sure it's a good idea. We already have a way too much > documentation. Instead of making it even harder for users to find > things, one should take the existing docs and improve them, rather > then dump ra