https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70061
--- Comment #7 from Rich Bowen <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Philippe Cloutier from comment #6) > > If you could answer the above question -- what it is, exactly, that you > > object to about that phrase -- I'll attempt to address it. > The main flaws in that sentence are in its implication that the pattern of a > triggered rule matches the original URL-path. There are several things wrong > with that implication, as explained in ticket #70024, but the one tracked > here is the assumption that the pattern always matches. In negative rules > (those with "!" before the pattern), the main condition is that the pattern > does not match. No, I simply don't agree that it implies that. It states "replaces the original URL-path that was matched by Pattern" - thus, when there is no match, there is no replacement. Willing to consider a patch, if you feel that you have a rephrasing that helps your confusion, but I do not see any cause for confusion here. -- 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]
