httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Wilson <>
Subject Re: patch list vote
Date Thu, 16 Mar 1995 09:14:07 GMT

> From: Frank Peters <fwp@Jester.CC.MsState.Edu>
> B5:  XBITHACK not honored on (!--#include--)ed files
> vote: -.5

> I've always disliked the XBITHACK.  I didn't give it much thought
> when I did it and I've often thought that there must be a more
> elegant solution to the problem it solves.  So I have an instictive
> dislike of anything based on it...but not enough dislike to outrigt
> veto it.

Hey people.  I can see the general concensus is verging towards "XBITHACK is
not the way to tell the server to parse a .html file" and I concede that in
the middle to long term it would be a GOOD THING(tm) to remove this UNIXese
kludge in favour of something that is:

a)	More extensibly elegant
b)	Something that Apache 2.2 for Windows NT can handle without the need
	for maintaining a separate source tree for non UNIX machines.

	[relax, it's a long way off, I'm sure ;)]


	but, but, but, a lot of sites depend on the u+x hack already so, for
Apache to be backwards compatible with servers rigged to run those sites the
new server will HAVE to be able to do anything that NCSA can do.

	[I don't honestly know if full compatibility is an issue, but it'd be
	nice if the early evaluation versions of Apache were fully NCSA
	compliant in this respect.]


	I'm asking you to please remember that this current phase of
negotiation is to determine which fixes can be applied with the minimum of
effort and without introducing too much new stuff which people aren't sure
about.  We can redesign the way people HAVE to maintain their page set a
couple of months from now, for the time being let's make something that people
can still use fresh-out-of-the-box.

Be sure to have the XBITHACK gear in the alpha release.


View raw message