* William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > Nak!!! // is most definately a distinct location :)
Hmm. > You are reading the uri as a filesystem location; but in fact > the RFC doesn't consider // equivilant to /, otherwise the Location > directive would flatten such issues out of scope :) Actually it's other way 'round. // is not equal to / in file system locations (e.g. UNC paths). Further <Location>, Alias and whatnot work with squeezed slashes. <LocationMatch> is an exception, because of a backwards compat bug as stated in the docs. mod_rewrite is also an exception for some reason, but only in server context. But you're right, that the RFC (1738) allows empty path segments - whatever this means. I'm sure I've read somewhere that // are equivalent to /. Can't remember, where. hrmpf. ;) > >I'd consider query?directive not as that easy as it could be. Think of > > the users that type them manually. > > Yes, I'm thinking of manual entry; and i want something that is > clearly distinct from normal filesystem entries, for the sake of > various query, spiders, and caching approaches. HTTP doesn't know about file systems, so I'm wondering why a spider would care. URLs with query string are indexed as any other URL for a long time now. Further a question mark is not as easy to type as just a directive name (look at keyboard layouts different from US-querty). Further the user needs to remember what to type to get a result. My suggestion (in the other mail) put the stuff into httpd.apache.org/docs/ where currently only version numbers exist in the file system. It's also kinda logical to the user that he can find things under 'httpd.apache.org/docs/directive'. The point of the whole construction is to make it as easy as possible for the user, not to have him to learn one more thing he's likely to forget again and again. > >> or something that doesn't imply that it's part of the normal content, > >> and something we can remove from robots? (They will harvest these > >> anyways as part of crawling the true docs set.) > > > >R=301 will do, I guess. > > Hows that? 301 response codes are cachable and the client (e.g. spider) is allowed to forget the original URI. Google, for example does exactly this. nd -- If God intended people to be naked, they would be born that way. -- Oscar Wilde --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
