On Wednesday 06 April 2011 15:58:29 you wrote: > On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Jason Vas Dias > <jason.vas.d...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't understand why this question got no responses . > > > > Surely it is not an unreasonable request to ask the server to support > > SSI requests like : > > \<\!\-\-\#include virtual\=\"include/head.html\"\-\-\> > > without also exporting "include/*" to be available to HTTP/S requests ? > > > > Of what meaning to users could a "head.html" or "footer.html" fragment be > > expected to be ? > > Virtual treats it like a normal request for that URL, so I would > expect it to be an otherwise valid URL for a client. "file" is an > alternative. > Thanks for your response Eric ! Yes, but even with "file" the server will still "serve" those files and they must still be "accessable" to HTTP/S requests - I remember testing this a long time ago I was still able to send an HTTP request for files included with "file" - the difference being that I lose the potential for file to be a cgi script and to get access to special SSI variables ? Or am I missing something ? ie a DocumentRoot /www/ file contains: <!--#include (virtual or file)="some_dir/a_fragment"--> The user must be "granted" read access to "some_dir" and to "some_dir/a_fragment" - I don't see how to overcome this except by a custom handler for "some_dir/" - or am I just a stupid apache novice ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org
