> 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.)
There is nothing more to say. I fully agree to all comments from nd and
Joshua. I would be glad to have only short comments within the default
httpd.conf with hints to the documentation. And I also won't suggest
ScriptInterpreterSource registry by default. Users should really have
read the documentation at this point before they use this setting.
Kess
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
