On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Dietz, Phil E. wrote:
>
> > No one has replied. Any opinions ?
> >
>
> I don't see why this is being implemented as an "Option". What is the
> harm of adding another directive? Problems with the "Option" approach:
Right. I think this is the rationale behind all the objections to adding
more Options before; Options are a historical anachronism from before "the
server" (NCSA at the time) easily supported the more flexible config
language that Apache now supports.
>
> 1. The options syntax is confusing overall.
>
> 2. I still believe this implementation is contrary to the way that other
> Options work, although I have not looked at the code in detail.
>
> Joshua.
>
