httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ralf S. Engelschall" <>
Subject Re: apache2-ng7
Date Sat, 08 Jan 2000 21:54:31 GMT

In article <387773A2.BAAED6CE@Golux.Com> you wrote:
> Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:

> [...]
> But if you went to the effort of writing the rewriteguide, and
> putting the hyperlink in, what was your motivation for doing
> it that way rather than checking it in directly to the Apache
> documentation tree?  Help me understand your motives so I don't
> mistakenly guess about them.

Look at my filesystem, Ken:

| rse@en1:/e/www/html/pw/apache/rewriteguide
| :> ls solutions/
| blockimg.src            lookahead.src           redirectfail.src
| blockrobot.src          massvhost.src           redirecthome.src
| browser.src             mirror.src              refresh.src
| canonhost.src           moredirs.src            regen.src
| canonurl.src            multiplex.src           reversemirror.src
| cluster.src             mvhomedirs.src          reverseproxy.src
| deflector.src           ncsaimagemap.src        setenv.src
| docroot.src             newservice.src          specialauth.src
| fsreorg.src             oldnewex.src            statdyn.src
| hostdeny.src            oldnewin.src            structhome.src
| htmlcompat.src          prgmap.src              timedep.src
| intranet.src            proxydeny.src           trailslash.src
| loadbalance.src         redirectext.src         virtuserhost.src

Those files looked like:

| <p>
| <zwue oldnewint><toc_h3>From Old to New (intern)</toc_h3></zwue>
| <p>
| <description>
| Assume we have recently renamed the page <tt>bar.html</tt> to
| <tt>foo.html</tt> and now want to provide the old URL for backward
| compatibility. Actually we want that users of the old URL even not recognize
| that the pages was renamed.
| </description>
| <solution>
| We rewrite the old URL to the new one internally via the following rule:
| <config>
| RewriteEngine  on
| RewriteBase    /~quux/
| RewriteRule    ^<b>foo</b>\.html$  <b>bar</b>.html
| </config>
| </solution>
| <delimiter>

As you can see, the rewriteguide was created over a longer time out
of many source files and the format of these files was WML and not
plain HTML. So, although I can't remember exactly, the reason why I've
not committed it directly to the Apache source tree in 1997/1998 seems
to be mainly because it wasn't available in the format the group would
have accepted. Today I had to spend extra hours just to write a Perl
script which converted the stuff into a single HTML document with the
Apache HTML style of writing and formatting. That's a oneway street with
no way back, of course.

That hyperlink we added very late AFAIK, because the users complained
more than once that they had to remember the link to my site. It was at
least certainly not because I wanted to promote anything or to hold back
anything. I think, at that time I don't wanted to change the format, so
it was clear that only a hyperlink was possible.

But today I was such angry about your posting that I decided to finally
go the oneway street and convert it to plain HTML with the Apache HTML

> [...]
>> > No-one else here seems to take such pains to make it clear what
>> > they've done, nor so prominently.
>> Grrr... next time I expect you to even asks why I still use
>> as my Email address instead of
>> when I post to new-httpd or what? Tz...
> It was an observation. Was it incorrect?

No, it wasn't incorrect at all. It's correct that I try hard to get my
credit and to convince people that my technical solutions are worth
considering. But it's always unfair to speak as I would contribute just
to promote my name, as Jim all the time says. Sorry, but this is just
bullshit... at least one could also say that "No-one else except Jim
here seems to take such pains to make it clear what the ASF's opinion
should be, nor so prominently." :-(

> [...]
> Once again you're twisting things, choosing to interpret one
> person's stated individual perception as the mass opinion of
> the entire group. Why?

You're right, it's a fault that generalize from Jim to the whole group.
Perhaps because people like Jim always speak as they would be the ASF
theirself. And perhaps because the same not true statements ("RSE has
stolen our src/helpers/* stuff") are also written by other people, just
because Jim repeated them too often for them so they already start
thinking it is the truth. Sorry if I generlized from an individual to
the entire group. I have to admit that this was unfair from my side, of
                                       Ralf S. Engelschall

View raw message