On Nov 17, 2009, at 21:49 , William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
I personally find it useful to continue having support for
features that were once used in the past, specifically to
test things that once worked to see if they still work
with the current version of Apache. Therefo
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> I personally find it useful to continue having support for
> features that were once used in the past, specifically to
> test things that once worked to see if they still work
> with the current version of Apache. Therefore, I do not
> consider these modules to be obsolete
I personally find it useful to continue having support for
features that were once used in the past, specifically to
test things that once worked to see if they still work
with the current version of Apache. Therefore, I do not
consider these modules to be obsolete. Unless they are
somehow broken
Hi,
Gregg L. Smith schrieb:
> Lars Eilebrecht wrote:
>> Or just use the 2.2 modules with 2.4.
>
> It was just my recent findings with 2.3.3-alpha that this will not work.
> If the APR 1.4(?) that was in httpd-2.3.3-alpha-deps.tar.gz is anything
> close to what will be shipped with 2.4 then no, thi
Lars Eilebrecht wrote:
Or just use the 2.2 modules with 2.4.
It was just my recent findings with 2.3.3-alpha that this will not work.
If the APR 1.4(?) that was in httpd-2.3.3-alpha-deps.tar.gz is anything
close to what will be shipped with 2.4 then no, this may not work. I had
to rebuild all m
Greg Stein wrote on 2009-11-11 23:33:35:
> Bah. If they want them, then they should not upgrade their server.
> Simple as that.
Or just use the 2.2 modules with 2.4.
There may still be some legacy sites using mod_imagemap or
mod_cern_meta, but in my opinion there is absolutely no reason to
conti
On Nov 12, 2009, at 8:13 AM, Niklas Edmundsson wrote:
So drop the confusing example module instead? Or has it been fixed
lately? ;)
mod_example is now mod_example_hooks and aims to implement a handler
for every hook in the server. It should no longer have the threading
issues previously
Rich Bowen wrote:
>
> On Nov 12, 2009, at 19:09 , Nick Kew wrote:
>
>> Rich Bowen wrote:
>>
>>> Client-side image maps have been part of HTML for more than a decade.
>>
>> Irrelevant for geographic maps - unless you define a different
>> "area" for every pixel!
>>
>> Clientside maps only work wit
On Nov 12, 2009, at 19:09 , Nick Kew wrote:
Rich Bowen wrote:
Client-side image maps have been part of HTML for more than a decade.
Irrelevant for geographic maps - unless you define a different
"area" for every pixel!
Clientside maps only work with areas, which are generally associated
wi
Rich Bowen wrote:
Client-side image maps have been part of HTML for more than a decade.
Irrelevant for geographic maps - unless you define a different
"area" for every pixel!
Clientside maps only work with areas, which are generally associated
with visual crap rather than anything functional
Rich Bowen wrote:
>
> As for mod_cern_meta, if one insists on keeping it, perhaps rename it to
> something less archaic, and perhaps merging it with mod_asis to produce
> something actually useful. But, truly, finding people who have even
> *heard* of the CERN web server is getting harder, and pro
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 9:12 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
>
> OTOH, that used CERN HTTPD with CGI, not mod_imagemap.
Wow, old school :)
> Don't you have that kind of application any more?
We definitely have a lot of interactive maps, but the processing you
describe is usually handled by CGI or Java. Our
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:27, Rich Bowen wrote:
>
> On Nov 12, 2009, at 11:12 , Nick Kew wrote:
>
>> Ken Dreyer wrote:
>>>
>>> (another user's perspective)
>>> At my work (US. Geological Survey) we try to discourage webmasters
>>> from using server-side imagemaps, since they are not Section 508
>
On Nov 12, 2009, at 11:12 , Nick Kew wrote:
Ken Dreyer wrote:
(another user's perspective)
At my work (US. Geological Survey) we try to discourage webmasters
from using server-side imagemaps, since they are not Section 508
compliant. We've had to keep the module to support some legacy sites,
b
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Eric Covener wrote:
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
As a non-scientific data point, I have never encountered anybody who knows
what mod_imagemap does, in all the years that I've been doing Apache
training. And in the 2.0-and-before days, when I would me
Ken Dreyer wrote:
(another user's perspective)
At my work (US. Geological Survey) we try to discourage webmasters
from using server-side imagemaps, since they are not Section 508
compliant. We've had to keep the module to support some legacy sites,
but if 2.4 drops it, we can probably migrate an
(another user's perspective)
At my work (US. Geological Survey) we try to discourage webmasters
from using server-side imagemaps, since they are not Section 508
compliant. We've had to keep the module to support some legacy sites,
but if 2.4 drops it, we can probably migrate any remaining server-s
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
> As a non-scientific data point, I have never encountered anybody who knows
> what mod_imagemap does, in all the years that I've been doing Apache
> training. And in the 2.0-and-before days, when I would mention mod_imap, the
> response would AL
On Nov 11, 2009, at 23:21 , William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
Rich Bowen wrote:
Don't you think that maybe it's time to drop mod_imagemap and
mod_cern_meta?
"there is already a large number of CERN users who can exploit this
module."
Seriously?
LOL
FWIW I know of one customer who absolutely
Greg Stein wrote:
>> FWIW I know of one customer who absolutely continues to use mod_imagemap and
>> have no indication they plan to drop it.
>>
>> modules/historical/ might be a good waypoint to eliminating these. Enabling
>> them should emit a warning they are no longer interesting and likely to
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 23:21, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> Rich Bowen wrote:
>> Don't you think that maybe it's time to drop mod_imagemap and mod_cern_meta?
>>
>> "there is already a large number of CERN users who can exploit this module."
>>
>> Seriously?
>
> LOL
>
> FWIW I know of one customer
Rich Bowen wrote:
> Don't you think that maybe it's time to drop mod_imagemap and mod_cern_meta?
>
> "there is already a large number of CERN users who can exploit this module."
>
> Seriously?
LOL
FWIW I know of one customer who absolutely continues to use mod_imagemap and
have no indication th
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 20:56, Rich Bowen wrote:
> Don't you think that maybe it's time to drop mod_imagemap and mod_cern_meta?
> "there is already a large number of CERN users who can exploit this module."
> Seriously?
I say "hell yes".
And my response to a user would be "you want that? fine. i
On 12 Nov 2009, at 01:56, Rich Bowen wrote:
> Don't you think that maybe it's time to drop mod_imagemap and mod_cern_meta?
>
> "there is already a large number of CERN users who can exploit this module."
>
> Seriously?
mod_imagemap is a perfectly good application module, albeit a minority
inte
Don't you think that maybe it's time to drop mod_imagemap and
mod_cern_meta?
"there is already a large number of CERN users who can exploit this
module."
Seriously?
--
Rich Bowen
rbo...@rcbowen.com
25 matches
Mail list logo
