- From: Denis Ah-Kang <denis@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 18:01:20 -0400
- To: Lea Verou <lea@w3.org>
- CC: Ryan Lane <rlane32@gmail.com>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, "public-webplatform@w3.org" <public-webplatform@w3.org>
On 03/21/2013 05:49 PM, Lea Verou wrote:
> Hi Denis,
>
> I believe that if you add a condition for "not found" [1] you don’t need to explicitly list all sections, right?
>
It depends on what kind of content you add. If www is intended to host
static content only, it will work.
However, rewrite rules can quickly become very messy and difficult to
debug. Since we don't have a lot of sections today, I'd rather
explicitly list them all.
> Cheers,
> Lea
>
> [1]: RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f
>
> Lea Verou
> W3C developer relations
> http://w3.org/people/all#lea ✿ http://lea.verou.me ✿ @leaverou
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 21, 2013, at 23:39, Denis Ah-Kang wrote:
>
>> On 03/21/2013 05:15 PM, Ryan Lane wrote:
>>> Let's avoid using .htaccess. It's better if these things are done
>>> through the server configuration. It's easier to troubleshoot things
>>> when server configuration is done in a single place, and it's easier to
>>> configuration manage it.
>>
>> Yes, it's better to have all these things in one place. The redirects
>> have been added in the Apache configuration directly.
>>
>> Lea, I limited the redirect to request uris starting by
>> "/(beginners|css|dom|concepts|accessibility|svg|html|javascript|apis)"
>> so if we add new pages under www in the future, it won't be caught by
>> the rewrite rule.
>> Let me know if there's any issue.
>>
>> Concerning the 404s, I'll be happy to configure Apache to serve a better
>> page if you have one.
>>
>> Denis
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 21 March 2013 22:01:24 UTC