On 3/8/07, Tony Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 2:16 PM -0500 3/8/07, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> >The code in question was a type association handler that looked up loader
> >functions based on file extension.  This was specifically convenient for
> >recognizing the difference between .htaccess files and other dotfiles that
> >might appear in a web directory tree -- e.g. .htpasswd.  The proposed
> >change of splitext() would break that determination, because .htpasswd and
> >.htaccess would both be considered files with empty extensions, and would
> >be handled by the "empty extension" handler.
> So, ".htaccess" and "foo.htaccess" should be treated the same way?  Is that
> what Apache does?

I've never personally used "foo.htaccess", but I have had files named,
e.g. "test1.htaccess", or "backup.htaccess".  And I don't know, but I
assume a "foo.htaccess" would be an older or test version of a
.htaccess file.  So, my usecases say, "yes, they should be treated the

Python-Dev mailing list

Reply via email to