httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ben Laurie <>
Subject Re: what Apache configuration file should/could be
Date Thu, 04 Mar 1999 20:29:38 GMT
Dean Gaudet wrote:
> >  . csq: - need loose constraints (char/lex/syntax)
> >         - delagated parsing (to enable extensions such as perl sections...)
> Yeah this is something I've babbled about.  XML gives us this, no?  We can
> do arbitrary "quoting" of sections and delegate who parses them...

Hmm. We could even let modules extend the DTD. That would be cool. It
would mean we'd have to build the DTD on the fly, though. You then parse
everything in one place, but dole out the parsed stuff to the
appropriate modules. That could be very cool.

> >  . status: ok
> >         - raw text configuration files.
> >         - backslash-continued keyword-controlled lines
> >         - html-like nested sections
> >
> >  3 SIMPLE (easy expression of HTTP concepts)
> >  . integrated concepts such as VirtualHost, Directory, Location, Limit...
> >  . no escaping, direct expressions, usual conventions
> >    [e.g. <VIRTUALHOST NAME="this" PORT="80"> -> <VirtualHost this:80>]
> I'm not particularly attached to any of the current syntax.  It does
> absolutely nothing for me.  It pretends to look like HTML, but last I
> looked at HTML, something like <virtualhost foo>blah</virtualhost> is
> valid, but not in apache's language.  I consider the "one command per
> line"  crap to be crap.

Valid in XML, of course. Agree about the crap.




"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
     - Indira Gandhi

View raw message