On 9/20/2010 12:27 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > The Limit/LimitExcept directives are *very* handy and important when > mod_dav is being used. In fact, LimitExcept was created specifically > in order to avoid listing every new method that might come along via > DAV specs and such. > > As long as an alternative is available, then I don't care. But the > functionality is very important.
Agreed. Although I have seen (from the dav perspective) many too many configurations with directives other than the three, with the author's expectation that they were triggered only for the Limit[Except] methods. That's the idea of both the Method[Except] block and Nick's illustration of the If block. In 2.4, we shouldn't be accepting directives that don't actually respect the container they are placed within, and operate without any indication that it is a misconfiguration. The ability to control by [unknown] methods isn't going anywhere, in fact there will be MTOWTDI reliably, out of the box :)
