https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70036
Philippe Cloutier <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED Resolution|WONTFIX |--- --- Comment #6 from Philippe Cloutier <[email protected]> --- The fourth paragraph of the mod_rewrite reference documentation’s Summary also causes confusion between paths and query strings. It contains: > The path generated by a rewrite rule can include a query string, or can lead > to internal sub-processing, external request redirection, or internal proxy > throughput. > A path can hardly contain a query string; what this means is the *substitution* can include one, but that is already mentioned in the third paragraph, so I suggest simply: > A rewrite rule can lead to internal sub-processing, external request > redirection, or internal proxy throughput. (In reply to Rich Bowen from comment #5) > What you're linking to there is not from a user support forum. That's my To > Do list, for the refresh of the mod_rewrite guide. That's the list I've been > working from for the past month. The link is to the To Do list for mod_rewrite documentation. The last item in the “HIGH — Widely asked, not covered” section mentions that users frequently misunderstand what a rewrite rule’s pattern matches. That is presumably often because URL-paths are misdefined. According to that To Do document, these pain points were identified based on questions on a user support/discussion forum. > I've re-read this ticket several times this morning. Thank you for your attention > I think you're saying that the text on > https://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/en/mod/directive-dict.html#Syntax > suggests that URL-path might include the port number? That is point #2, which is indeed a problem, but given that ports are usually not specified, I consider #4 more problematic. > But then the suggested patch in "Comment 2" is to urlmapping.xml and The patch I suggested in comment 2 fixes the case I reported in that comment. It does not fix the initial case (from Description). > And then you link to *my* todo list (which is not linked > to from anywhere, and has only been in the repository for less than 2 weeks) > as evidence that it's confusing. It is not the TODO document itself which is evidence that it's confusing. It's the questions which were compiled to fill that document. > Philippe, your attention to detail has led to some good clarifications, but > in this case, it does not. I fail to see how details matter here; whether a URL’s path includes its port and query string is *not* a detail. > I'm closing this ticket again. The patch does not clarify, as I said in my > earlier comment. It *removes* the clarification. Please refrain from marking issues as resolved until they are. One’s approval/disapproval or understanding of any unapplied patch does not determine whether an issue is resolved. I appreciate the work you did, but until the definition itself is fixed, I’m afraid adding a link there only reinforces the misunderstanding. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
