httpd-docs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Lars Eilebrecht <>
Subject RE: error docs
Date Mon, 20 Aug 2001 23:01:47 GMT
According to Joshua Slive:

>  1. Any objection to combining header.html with top.html and footer.html
>  with bottom.html?  As long as we are saving filesystem mucking, this seems
>  like any easy score, and it makes the whole setup more clear from my
>  perspective.


>  The same goes for including contact.html and spacer.html directly
>  in header and footer where appropriate.

contact.html cannot be included, because it contains the info text
about the admin or other contact persons and is available in
multiple languages.
spacer.html may be used in the error docs itself and must a
seperate file.

>  2. I'm not sure how comfortable I am with this:
>  <FONT SIZE="+2" COLOR="#FFFFFF"><strong><!--#echo encoding="none"
>  var="TITLE" --></strong></FONT>
>  </TD></TR></TABLE>
>  I know this technique (white text on a black table cell) is common
>  and it looks nice.  But I'm afraid that there are browsers out there that
>  can interpret the <font color=... tag, but can't interpret the <td
>  bgcolor=... tag.  The result would be white on white.

Well, I see your point, but the text in the two tables on the top
and bottom on the page don't contain any relevant information. The text
in the table on top contains the document title and the table on bottom
contains the status code (which is more or less useful to most users).
The idea is simple to have 'nicer' error messages compared to the original
ones and give the user some base for designing his own message look.
>  My preference is just a plain old <h1>...</h1>.

But that's sooo boring. :-)

>  (We could even include a stylesheet if we want to be fancy.)

Stylesheets would be cool.

>  3. The contact.html includes should probably be wrapped with an if-test
>  for INCLUDE_SERVER_ADMIN.  I'm sure there are people who prefer not to put
>  an email address on all these error pages.

Oh, that was the idea behind this variable. Looks like that the current
version of the docs is missing the check. *shrug*

>  4. I'm not sure that I see the point of the cache-control and pragma
>  HTTP-Equiv stuff.  Shouldn't we be letting the cache decide for itself
>  whether to cache based on the status code/etc.  Are the caches out there
>  so bad that they can't be trusted with this decision?

I've no opinion on keeping or deleting these meta entries. They are just
there to be super safe if a robot/client end up on the error page and
would have stored/cached the page. Please consider that it is possible
to directly access a document in the error directory. In this case
status is 200 and the page might be stored in the robot's database or
cached by a proxy cache.

>  5. Some of the pages include <!--#echo encoding="none"
>  var="REDIRECT_METHOD"-->.  Is that safe?  Shouldn't those be
>  encoded in some way to prevent the client from shoving nasty methods at
>  us, or is this variable safe?

IMHO it's safe. There was a reason why I used no encoding, but I
don't recall it at the moment.
Hmm... I just tested this (1.3.21-dev) by doing a simple POST request
to a static HTML file, but REDIRECT_METHOD was actually undefined.
*ouch* This should be REDIRECT_REQUEST_METHOD instead.

Are we now keeping the error docs in httpd-2.0 instead of httpd-docs-2.0?
I just noticed that OtherBill moved some of the files to httpd-2.0.

Lars Eilebrecht              - Just because you're paranoid doesn't            - mean they're not really after you.

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message