- From: Corne Beerse <beerse@ats.nld.alcatel.nl>
- Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 08:56:53 +0200
- To: jose.kahan@w3.org
- CC: tony mollica <tmollica@thegrid.net>, www-amaya@w3.org
jose.kahan@w3.org wrote: > by rule == one of your httpd server's access control rules. > > Should be cleared if we change it to say "by your server". > > I don't know if you're authorized to write to the server, though. If > it's so, there's a bug in the current release when editing a remote file. > Amaya reports that the save failed, even though it succeded. > > To go around it, add to your thot.rc (or .thotrc file) the following > line: > > NO_REREAD_CHECK=yes > > We already fixed this bug and it'll be out in a forthcoming minor release. > > Note that the syntax of the above rule will change to: > > DISABLE_PUT_CHECK > > (or some other nicer sounding name). If you change the rule, please only use positive rules: Make it something like REREADCHECK or PUT_CHECK and not disable_.... or no_....!!! This avoids problems for peoples who don't read english verry well. Specially the no_... version is often misunderstood as the NumberOf_...... I would have the NO_REREAD_CHECK given a number value: 0 for none and 2 for twice!. So for this (new) rule: PUT_CHECK=true Corne -- Try not to let implementation details sneak into design documents. Corne' Beerse | Alcatel Telecom Nederland mailto:beerse@ats.nld.alcatel.nl | Postbus 3292 talkto:+31(70)3079108 faxto:+31(70)3079191 | NL-2280 GG Rijswijk
Received on Thursday, 8 October 1998 02:57:13 UTC