On 3/8/07, Tony Nelson firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
At 2:16 PM -0500 3/8/07, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
The code in question was a type association handler that looked up loader functions based on file extension. This was specifically convenient for recognizing the difference between .htaccess files and other dotfiles that might appear in a web directory tree -- e.g. .htpasswd. The proposed change of splitext() would break that determination, because .htpasswd and .htaccess would both be considered files with empty extensions, and would be handled by the "empty extension" handler.
So, ".htaccess" and "foo.htaccess" should be treated the same way? Is that what Apache does?
I've never personally used "foo.htaccess", but I have had files named, e.g. "test1.htaccess", or "backup.htaccess". And I don't know, but I assume a "foo.htaccess" would be an older or test version of a .htaccess file. So, my usecases say, "yes, they should be treated the same."