On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, [ISO-8859-15] Andr� Malo wrote:
> * [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Unless anyone strenuously objects, I'm adding back the comments
> > regarding ScriptInterpreterSource. We're getting an increasing number of
> > questions about this.
>
> I'm -0 on it, because using ScriptInterpretersource registry without further
> explanation of the flaws is dangerous. Using ScriptInterpreterSource
> registry-strict without knowing what it does is silly.
> However, let us document it better and just refer to the docs, if at all.
> Second objection is: The httpd.conf may not become a doc replacement. It
> disturbes me a bit, that (a) people get such a big default config which gives
> wrong impressions about how to use the apache. ("complex", <IfModule over all
> and everywhere etc.).
I agree on all nd's points.
Including a URL to the ScriptInterpreterSource docs would certainly be
appropriate, as would be adding a section to this doc discussing the cgi
issue:
http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.0/platform/windows.html
Most of what you just put in the comments could go verbatim into a new
section of windows.html. (But, of course, we shouldn't be recommending
"registry" for most users.)
Joshua.
