You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to docs@httpd.apache.org by bu...@apache.org on 2026/05/06 17:41:06 UTC
[Bug 70027] New: RewriteBase documentation: assumes per-directory rules are defined in htaccess files
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70027
Bug ID: 70027
Summary: RewriteBase documentation: assumes per-directory rules
are defined in htaccess files
Product: Apache httpd-2
Version: 2.5-HEAD
Hardware: PC
URL: https://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/en/mod/mod_rewrite
.html#rewritebase
Status: NEW
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: Documentation
Assignee: docs@httpd.apache.org
Reporter: chealer@gmail.com
Target Milestone: ---
The phrasing of the documentation of the RewriteBasee directive assumes
per-directory rules are defined in an htaccess file, for example in:
> The RewriteBase directive specifies the URL prefix to be used for per-directory (htaccess) RewriteRule directives that substitute a relative path.
The first 2 cases could be simplified, just linking "per-directory" to
https://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/en/glossary.html#perdirectory
By the way, it is unclear which misconfiguration the last paragraph refers to.
🅭🄍: https://www.philippecloutier.com/Common+infrastructure+licensing#its
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
[Bug 70027] RewriteBase documentation: assumes per-directory rules are defined in htaccess files
Posted by bu...@apache.org.
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70027
Rich Bowen <rb...@apache.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|--- |FIXED
OS| |All
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--- Comment #1 from Rich Bowen <rb...@apache.org> ---
Patched in 1933890 and 1933891
"per-directory" now always links to the Glossary, since it's more than just
htaccess files.
I could not figure out what the example was intending to illustrate, and what
the misconfiguration was. I have made a note to add a more useful example soon,
but for now the example has been removed.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
[Bug 70027] RewriteBase documentation: assumes per-directory rules are defined in htaccess files
Posted by bu...@apache.org.
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70027
Rich Bowen <rb...@apache.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED |RESOLVED
--- Comment #3 from Rich Bowen <rb...@apache.org> ---
Remaining instances fixed in r1933914 (trunk) and r1933915 (2.4).
"per-directory" now consistently links to the glossary throughout the
RewriteBase directive documentation. Also normalized "URL-path" to match the
Terms Used to Describe Directives page.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
[Bug 70027] RewriteBase documentation: assumes per-directory rules are defined in htaccess files
Posted by bu...@apache.org.
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70027
Philippe Cloutier <ch...@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
--- Comment #2 from Philippe Cloutier <ch...@gmail.com> ---
Thank you very much Rich
2 cases remain as of r1933891:
1. The one mentioned in the description
2. The one in the second bullet:
> The filesystem path to the directory containing the RewriteRule, suffixed by the relative substitution is also valid as a URL path on the server (this is rare).
By the way, if that refers to a URL-path, the Terms Used to Describe Directives
page defines it with a hyphen.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
[Bug 70027] RewriteBase documentation: assumes per-directory rules are defined in htaccess files
Posted by bu...@apache.org.
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70027
Philippe Cloutier <ch...@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
--- Comment #4 from Philippe Cloutier <ch...@gmail.com> ---
Thank you Rich, that fixes the first case, but the last one still does not take
Directory sections into account. By the way, there should either be a comma
before and after "suffixed by the relative substitution", or none.
I suggest:
> The directory-path for which the RewriteRule applies, suffixed by the relative substitution, is also valid as a URL-path on the server (this is rare).
That being said, I find it unclear which paths are invalid as URL-paths on the
server.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
[Bug 70027] RewriteBase documentation: assumes per-directory rules are defined in htaccess files
Posted by bu...@apache.org.
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70027
Philippe Cloutier <ch...@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |VERIFIED
--- Comment #6 from Philippe Cloutier <ch...@gmail.com> ---
Thanks again Rich
That fixes, but I still find the sentence unclear. For me,
/var/www/pathwithatypo.jpig is not an *invalid* path just because
/var/www/pathwithatypo.jpig does not exist. Indeed, RFC 9110 does not use the
term "invalid" with regards to 404 Not Found. Where it does use it is to
describe 400 Bad Request (15.5.1.).
For example, on Windows, “C:\foo:bar.txt” is an invalid path; no file with such
a path can be created.
I would recommend to clarify the phrasing or to provide an example.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
[Bug 70027] RewriteBase documentation: assumes per-directory rules are defined in htaccess files
Posted by bu...@apache.org.
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70027
Rich Bowen <rb...@apache.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|REOPENED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #5 from Rich Bowen <rb...@apache.org> ---
Thanks. Patch applied.
Invalid URL-paths, for the most part, are those that result in a 404 not found.
That is, the are paths which are invalid, and don't resolve to a valid
resource.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org