At 01:20 PM 11/22/2003, Rich Bowen 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. > >OK, thanks. All comments noted. I'll roll back this change and think >about what the alternate would be. We need to do something about what >is, apparently, a growing source of confusion as more and more folks are >using Apache on Windows.
I'm afraid I agree - perhaps we need to create a doc to help users understand how to create ExecCGI entries that encourages folks to use registry-strict. When I introduced the feature, more and more users were tripping over .txt and other obtuse files with script mappings (e.g. in cgi-bin etc.) If you think about it, only perl, python etc are reasonable entries already in the registry, the user is taking some action above and beyond those few to create Open associations. If they can create an Open association, they can create an ExecCGI verb as well. So the doc can probably be limited to the examples of ActiveState's perl and python distribution which are most commonly used. Bill --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
