DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40299>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40299 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-01-05 10:15 ------- (In reply to comment #3) > The extension .es conflicts with existing language extension for Spanish. > We will use .ecma instead. The extension .pl for perl files also conflicts with existing file extension for polish, .pl. Other existing conflicts may exist. We deal with such conflicts since years... My question is: why does this conflict seem to be a problem *now*, but the other existing conflicts (e.g. .pl file extension vs. polish language extension) don't? Why using .ecma instead of the RFC-proposed .es and leave the other conflicts untouched? Is there a possibility to let check apache, if the last file extension is one for content negotiation or the "normal" file extension? If such a possibility theoretically exists or could exist, I propose, it should be implemented into apache to avoid such conflict situations in the future. What's your opinion about that issue? -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
