On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 5:57 PM, Jacob Champion <champio...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 02/27/2017 03:19 AM, Joe Orton wrote: >> >> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 10:00:08PM +0100, Yann Ylavic wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Joe Orton <jor...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> (b) for <IfDirective foo> match both "foo" and "<foo". >>> >>> >>> I'd vote for this, it's very unlikely that some day we want to add a >>> directive called VirtualHost or If (w/o the leading '<') which may >>> conflict here, so it shouldn't hurt. >> >> >> I'm fine with that, I'll commit like this unless anybody else has strong >> opinions. > > > mod_lua (in trunk at least) apparently ships both a '<LuaXXX>' and 'LuaXXX' > version of several directives. It wouldn't surprise me to find that other > third-party modules have a "block version" of a normal directive with the > same name. I'm kind of -0.5 to making the two collide. > > Is there a good reason that quoting the argument to a block gives a syntax > error? Can we fix that instead?
As much as we all suck at naming things... What about <IfDirective > vs. <IfSection >? (And deliberately circumvent anyone using <IfDirective "<... since it is simply too confusing for any sane parser.)
