On Thursday 15 September 2011, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > On 9/15/2011 9:55 AM, Eric Covener wrote: > > sf wanted to fork RewriteRule into a flavor that never guessed if > > you meant to provide a URL or a File for 2.4, and take the oppty > > to unload some other baggage with the new flavors. I am +1 to > > that for 2.4 (even 2.4.>0) since we'd leave RewriteRule intact. > > +1 here, too. Yes, there are RewriteRule 'flags', but as this > particular user observed, getting the flags right can be tricky. > Explicit directives for uri -> uri, uri -> file and uri -> proxy > transformations would be much less error prone.
Yes. The problem is that the default behaviour of RewriteRule is bad, so it can't be fixed without breaking people's configs. But doing the new RewriteTo* flavors right will require considerable thought and a lot of testing. I don't have enough spare cycles to do that at the moment and I don't want to delay 2.4 for it. > In the same spirit as axing the <Foo ~ ""> regex match syntax > becoming <FooMatch "">. Should we start in 2.4 by logging a deprecation warning at level info for the <Foo ~ ""> syntax?
