At 2:16 PM -0500 3/8/07, Phillip J. Eby wrote: >At 11:53 AM 3/8/2007 +0100, Martin v. Löwis wrote: >>That assumes there is a need for the old functionality. I really don't >>see it (pje claimed he needed it once, but I remain unconvinced, not >>having seen an actual fragment where the old behavior is helpful). > >The code in question was a type association handler that looked up loader >functions based on file extension. This was specifically convenient for >recognizing the difference between .htaccess files and other dotfiles that >might appear in a web directory tree -- e.g. .htpasswd. The proposed >change of splitext() would break that determination, because .htpasswd and >.htaccess would both be considered files with empty extensions, and would >be handled by the "empty extension" handler. So, ".htaccess" and "foo.htaccess" should be treated the same way? Is that what Apache does? -- ____________________________________________________________________ TonyN.:' <mailto:tonynelson at georgeanelson.com> ' <http://www.georgeanelson.com/>
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4