httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexei Kosut <>
Subject Re: SuppressHTMLPreamble fix/feature
Date Sat, 30 Nov 1996 19:05:47 GMT
On Sat, 30 Nov 1996, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> Two people have asked for this change this month, and I've wanted it for
> a long time, so I went ahead and coded it for 1.2b0 along the lines
> suggested by Andrey A. Chernov (, but using better code IMHO.
> In his words:


> Here is the patch.  I have always considered this a bug, which is why
> I want to commit it even with the feature freeze.  I will also supply the
> documentation when (if) I do the commit.  +1 anybody?

Hmm. I'm not going to -1 it, but it seems a bit too much of a feature
for my taste. Also, the *Options directives really should be
depreciated, since we now (and have since 0.8.0) have the ability to
put any arbirtary directive anywhere (which we didn't have with the
NCSA-based code, which explains the Options/IndexOptions directives in
the first place). In otherwords, I'd perfer a "SupressHTMLPreamble
On|Off" directive or whatnot.

> BTW, I also noticed that we can't add/remove IndexOptions with the +/-
> prefix like we now can with Options.  This seems inconsistent to me.

Apache is often inconsistent :)

> Also, we should update all the copyright lines for 1996 before 1.2b1.

Actually, I looked up U.S. copyright law on this a few months ago,
because I was thinking the same thing.... it turns out that it's very
vauge on the subject, and as near as I can tell, depending on
interpretation, we could put either 1995 (on the theory that the
source file is one work written from 1995 through 1996 - in this case,
the earlier date gets it), 1995-1996 (on the theory that it is two
seperate works, one written in 1995, and an addition/revision in
1996), or 1996 (on the theory that it is a new edition of the file,
done in 1996). In other words, it really doesn't matter.

Alexei Kosut <>      The Apache HTTP Server

View raw message