On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, [ISO-8859-15] André 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]