Re: MIME.types, mime.types?

2001-08-21 Thread Joshua Slive
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Rich Bowen wrote: > When you sai that they need to be synched, do we have a general idea > at what point they got out of sync? I'm wondering if it is just a > question of going back and applying the same patched that got applied > to the 1.3 docs. I just took a quick look at

Compiling and installing apache

2001-08-21 Thread Rich Bowen
I was today looking at http://httpd.apache.org/docs/install.html and found it to be ... how to put this nicely ... suboptimal. It contains little nuggets like "Apache is designed to be configured and run from the same set of directories where it is compiled." and "Copy or rename these files to the

Re: MIME.types, mime.types?

2001-08-21 Thread Rich Bowen
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Joshua Slive wrote: > > > On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Rich Bowen wrote: > > > If the default value of TypesConfig is conf/MIME.types, why does > > Apache ship with a file called mime.types instead? I presume there's > > some historical reason for this, right? > > That's an error in t

Re: MIME.types, mime.types?

2001-08-21 Thread Joshua Slive
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Rich Bowen wrote: > If the default value of TypesConfig is conf/MIME.types, why does > Apache ship with a file called mime.types instead? I presume there's > some historical reason for this, right? That's an error in the 2.0 docs. The true default (I just checked the code)

Re: mod_TEMPLATE.html

2001-08-21 Thread Rich Bowen
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Joshua Slive wrote: > > On Mon, 20 Aug 2001, Rich Bowen wrote: > > > I have not committed this. Just submitting it for peer review and > > approval/suggestions. > > Looks good. > > I would drop the

MIME.types, mime.types?

2001-08-21 Thread Rich Bowen
If the default value of TypesConfig is conf/MIME.types, why does Apache ship with a file called mime.types instead? I presume there's some historical reason for this, right? -- And everyone said, "If we only live, We too will go to sea in a Sieve - To the hills of the Chankly Bore!" (The Jumblie

Re: mod_TEMPLATE.html

2001-08-21 Thread Joshua Slive
On Mon, 20 Aug 2001, Rich Bowen wrote: > I have not committed this. Just submitting it for peer review and > approval/suggestions. Looks good. I would drop the

Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/docs/docroot/error

2001-08-21 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr.
From: "Lars Eilebrecht" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 9:41 PM > According to [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > >Log: > >Remove the old version of the error docs. > > Err, I'm puzzled. > Bill asked me to update these pages with the fix for REDIRECT_METHOD, too > and you're now r

RE: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/docs/docroot/error

2001-08-21 Thread Lars Eilebrecht
According to [EMAIL PROTECTED]: >Log: >Remove the old version of the error docs. Err, I'm puzzled. Bill asked me to update these pages with the fix for REDIRECT_METHOD, too and you're now removing the error docs? ciao... -- Lars Eilebrecht- Reality has always been to sm

mod_TEMPLATE.html

2001-08-21 Thread Rich Bowen
I have not committed this. Just submitting it for peer review and approval/suggestions. I called it mod_TEMPLATE.html rather than mod_template.html in case we have a mod_template at some point, as an implementation of one of the plethora of template-based web content generation tools. Of course, i

RE: error docs

2001-08-21 Thread Joshua Slive
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Lars Eilebrecht wrote: > According to Joshua Slive: > > > I still haven't actually tried this stuff on a real server, so take this > > with a grain of salt. > > BTW, here are two examples of real servers to play with... > > http://www.cablewireless.de/ (based on version 1.