On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Graham Leggett <minf...@sharp.fm> wrote: > On 04 Oct 2012, at 9:18 PM, André Malo <n...@perlig.de> wrote: > >> Hmm. The very sole concept of RewriteBase is "base for this location and >> this location only". >
> Exactly, which is why merging is the only sensible behaviour. "/foo/bar" is > below location "/foo" at all times, regardless of whether someone has added > <Location /foo/bar> to their config or not. Until someone has explicitly > stated otherwise, /foo/bar should have the same RewriteBase as /foo. No, it's not sensible. The default base URL has always been relative to the context the rules appear in and can be overridden by the directive. The directive should not always be set and should not be copied from higher scopes. The copying breaks that even for containers of Location /foo/ and Location /foo/bar/, much less traditional Directory and htacess where RewtiteBase is generally more useful. > Not merging properly means that the addition of a completely unrelated > directive such as RewriteRule to a Location that previously had only > inherited RewriteRules suddenly makes the RewriteBase vanish completely > without warning. With this particular directive, no RewriteBase is better than a bad guess, because the default prefix of relative substitution tracks to the context the rule is defined in.
