httpd-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Daniel Aleksandersen" <>
Subject Re: [users@httpd] Why does type-maps rely on MultiViews?
Date Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:05:06 GMT
On Sun,13 Apr 2008 23:00:19 -0400, Joshua Slive wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 10:36 PM, Daniel Aleksandersen
> <> wrote:
> > Hi list,
> >
> >  Why does type-maps rely on multiviews to be enabled? I can sort of understand why
it is required to match [../resource] with [../resource.var]. BUT as type maps are presented
as an alternate to multiviews in the documentation; I find it strange that it still requires
multiviews to work.
> >
> They are not required.
> You can either use resource.var directly in your links (in other
> words, expose that URL as your public address for the resource) or
> change the name of your type-map file to just "resource" and use
> SetHandler to mark it as a type-map.

Any file without an extension is treated as a type-map. I presume that .htaccess is excluded
by design?

<FilesMatch "!.*\..*\$">
SetHandler type-map

Another question, can I partaly negotiate between various type-maps? Say I have one type-map
called [../resource] saying:
URI: resource,en
Content-Language: en

And then [../resource,en] saying:
URI: resource,en,utf-8.htm
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8; qs=0.8
URI: resource,en,utf-8.xht
Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml; charset=UTF-8; qs=1.0

Or would I have to spesify everything two times?
Daniel Aleksandersen

The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
   "   from the digest:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message