> Without the L-flag, and after /a has been substituted with /b, the second
> rule would be tested not against /b but against http://[host]/b, so the
> result is not /c.
This is where my misconception about immediate redirection with the R flag
comes from. Should look at the code some more.
> RewriteRule /b /c
But here the pattern would also match /a/b/d which was not necessarily the
intention.
Back to
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERRER}<>$1 !(/test/.+)<>\1$
Could you elaborate a little about the syntax ? I have never seen anything like
this in the mod_rewrite manual page nor in the URL Rewriting Guide... but it
obviously works as far as I can tell from having given it a go. \1 is obviously
a back-reference, but <> ?
-ascs
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Ionescu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 10:32 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mod_rewrite
Axel-Stéphane SMORGRAV wrote:
>> Rules below would be tested, but they wouldn't match unless the pattern
>> starts with scheme + :// + url-path.
>
> unless the RewriteCond pattern starts with /. The above matches just fine.
I meant this hypothetical case
RewriteRule ^/a /b [R]
RewriteRule ^/b /c
Without the L-flag, and after /a has been substituted with /b, the second rule
would be tested not against /b but against http://[host]/b, so the result is
not /c.
So removing the L flag in that case won't change r->filename to /c
while using
RewriteRule ^/a /b [R]
RewriteRule /b /c
would now end up in /c and no external redirection takes place at all.
--
Robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
" from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
