httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From d...@ast.cam.ac.uk (David Robinson)
Subject Re: E71 Description File Addition
Date Wed, 12 Apr 1995 13:48:00 GMT
Rst wrote:
>  Yes it should; SCRIPT_NAME might be the requested URL, and if not it would
>  be easy to have a convention of putting the URL as the PATH_INFO.
>
>I think the point is that scripts used as index generators *would* have
>to be special-cased somehow... given that, I think the earlier suggestion
>for an IndexGenerator directive is probably the best way to handle it.
>(Besides, having "server-absolute" URIs in a DirectoryIndex directive
>just looks a bit weird...).

You may be right that an IndexGenerator directive might be better.
But in general I prefer to adapt existing directives (in ways that are not
too counter-intuitive) rather than create new directives.

Actually, I got it wrong. If DirectoryIndex could take paths, they should be
server filenames, not URIs. But I can think of one use already;
DirectoryIndex /httproot/messages/noindex.html
would send a page which explained how directory indexes were disabled.
It could even be a .asis file with a Status: 400 line...

 David.

Mime
View raw message