Return-Path: Delivered-To: new-httpd-archive@hyperreal.org Received: (qmail 15768 invoked by uid 6000); 5 Feb 1999 22:26:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 15757 invoked from network); 5 Feb 1999 22:26:31 -0000 Received: from fwns2d.raleigh.ibm.com (HELO fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com) (204.146.167.236) by taz.hyperreal.org with SMTP; 5 Feb 1999 22:26:31 -0000 Received: from rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.24]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id RAA29954 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 17:26:28 -0500 Received: from raleigh.ibm.com (wgs.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.74.165]) by rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id RAA32864 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 17:26:28 -0500 Message-ID: <36BB7013.FEE24A07@raleigh.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 05 Feb 1999 17:26:27 -0500 From: Bill Stoddard X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; AIX 4.2) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Win32 Script Interpreter Source References: <36BB61C4.5437A03@lyra.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org Greg Stein wrote: > > Paul Sutton wrote: > > ... > > Finally, if we do decide to name directives after the OS, is "Win32" > > actually the best name to use? Not many people refer to Windows systems as > > "Win32", and isn't there a 64 bit Windows planned/in progress? > > Many programmers refer to it as Win32, actually. > > And yes, there are 64-bit APIs on the way, and it is referenced as Win64 > :-) Good arguments. I will change the directive name to "ScriptInterpreterSource" (kinda goes along with ScriptAlias, etc.) unless I hear good arguments against... Bill -- Bill Stoddard stoddard@raleigh.ibm.com