https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70026
Philippe Cloutier <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |NEW --- Comment #2 from Philippe Cloutier <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Rich Bowen from comment #1) > As with the other issue today, the goal in these documents is to promote > best practice. I am not sure which other documents you refer to, but the document which contains this issue is the mod_rewrite reference documentation. The problematic paragraph does not look like best practice at all, but if it is meant that way, it should probably be moved elsewhere. > It does not assume that these options will be overridden *by default* but > that some server configurations will have overridden them. The sentence does not do any of these; it assumes the option *can* be overridden by default. In other words, that if it was not for ISP configuration, that a shared hosting customer would have the privilege to set these options. > The reader *does* have a server administrator. It may be themself. It may be > someone else. It may be a Puppet script. But there is an administrator. Right, but the sentence does not refer to "your server’s administrator”. It reads “your administrator”, implying the reader has an administrator. > In each case, suggestions better phrasing is welcome, but complicating for > the sake of the edge case seems unkind to the majority of readers. I don't consider AllowOverride None or self-hosting as edge cases, but in any case, the main problem is the suggestion that an AllowOverride directive is necessary to prevent overriding these options, which is particularly misleading as this used to be the case. Even on installs which allow overriding, removing directives would suffice. Corner cases for 0.1% of environments may be one thing, but in general, I recommend against quiet simplifications. Once upon a time, mod_rewrite was described equivocally: > Despite the tons of examples and docs, mod_rewrite is voodoo. Damned cool > voodoo, but still voodoo. I think the most important goal of the documentation should be to make the behavior predictable. Excessive simplifications erode the reader's trust. > I don't see the phrase "the FollowSymLinks or SymLinksIfOwnerMatch Options > must be enabled" in any of the current versions of the documents. Can you > point out where you are seeing this? Sure: https://github.com/apache/httpd/blob/trunk/docs/manual/mod/mod_rewrite.xml#L1153-L1154 > (I've just rebuilt and republished all > recent edits to xml files, just in case something was out of sync with the > latest versions.) Thank you By the way, I did not receive email notifications from this ticket, either when I reported or after comment 1. The expected notifications are not in my Spam folder, so was it not for chance, I would probably have missed this for years. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
