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 same." Regards, Pat _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
