httpd-docs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From André Malo>
Subject Re: german translation of core.xml
Date Sun, 12 Jan 2003 23:01:21 GMT
* Erik Abele wrote:

> I like the "X-Direktive" way, it's just easier to realize while scanning the doc.

+1 for the same reason.

>>>>Der Core-Handler für gewöhnliche Dateien weist PATH_INFO standardmäßig
>>>What is this supposed to mean?
>>>I thought the directive as about rejecting requests, not about
>>>rejecting the setting of the PATH_INFO value.

yes. The orignal states:

| The core handler for normal files defaults to rejecting PATH_INFO.

I think, it should be changed to "... to rejecting PATH_INFO requests.".

> I think Michael just meant "...weist Zugriffe mittels PATH_INFO
> standardmäßig zurück" instead of only "...weist PATH_INFO standardmäßig
> zurück", right?

"PATH_INFO-Zugriffe" seems to be better (for me).

> This bugged me for years, but it seems there is no better way to name these
> files :-) A change of the current docs would be immense I think, and what
> should they be called? Perhaps a 'decentralized configuration file'?
> ehhh...urghh.

the official term is "distributed configuration file". Sounds cool in 
English, but that's all. At least since it's so widely spread already, I 
think we should stick with ".htaccess file" and learn to be happy with it 

[Michael wrote:]
>>>>Die AuthName übergebene Zeichenkette ist das, was in dem von den meisten
>>>>Browsern angebotenen Passwort-Dialog angezeigt wird.
>>>Do we actually know about browsers that don't provide a password
>>>dialog but still support authentication?
>>>On the other hand, I have seen a browser that will display the
>>>dialog but not show the AuthName (Opera 3.5, fortunately very old

IMHO that's not relevant at all. We'll never know all browsers so "most" is 
the best term one could choose.

>>>><Directory Verzeichnis> ... </Directory>
>>>I would use "Verzeichnispfad", as this one is about the name of
>>>the directory, not about its actual content etc.
>> I have difficulties to see why "Verzeichnis" could be understood as
>> "Verzeichnisinhalt". When I think of a directory, I'm thinking of its name
>> not its content.

> I would prefer "Verzeichnispfad" too. Not because "Verzeichnis" could be
> misleading as Michael stated, just because it is easier to understand. Why
> to complicate it when everybody knows "Verzeichnispfad" and other terms
> _could_ be misleading?

Well, "Verzeichnispfad" is 100 pc. correct, but I'm stumbling over it every 
time I read it. +/-0 on any term here ;-)

> And three other things:

>   - <snip>
>   - "Zugangsinformationen"
>     I would prefer just "Anweisungen" or better "Angaben"

"Konfigurationsanweisungen" (backport to original: configuration 

>   - "voll qualifizierter Pfad"
>     I would propose "absolut". I knew about fully qualified domain names
>     but I don't know any fully qualified paths, they are just absolute.
>     Hmmm, but I see the englisch version isn't much better :-(
>     Perhaps we should change this too? Thoughts?

+1 at least on "absolut". Is "absolute path" normally used in English 

>   - <snip>
>   - (NameVirtualHost-Direktive)
>     "geben Sie die IP-Adresse an, an der der Server Anfragen"
>     -> "..., auf der der Server..." ?

not sure here. If you consider the IP address as an _interface_ and the 
httpd sitting on one side, it's "an". However, "auf" maybe better readable.

Flhacs wird im Usenet grundsätzlich alsfhc geschrieben. Schreibt man
lafhsc nicht slfach, so ist das schlichtweg hclafs. Hingegen darf man
rihctig ruhig rhitcgi schreiben, weil eine shcalfe Schreibweise bei
irhictg nicht als shflac angesehen wird.       -- Hajo Pflüger in dnq

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

View raw message