Re: Proposal: mod_setenvif and mod_browser

[Randy Terbush <ra...@zyzzyva.com>]

This seems a reasonable suggestion. I don't relish all of the 
config files I need to change to make the switch. Can we have 
backward compatibility? :-)


>     I've been looking at Paul's setenvif module, and I'd like to
>     re-propose something that was mentioned 'way back at the beginning
>     of the [calendar] year.
> 
>     BrowserMatch[NoCase] is a special case of what mod_setenvif does
>     (set envariables based upon header-field values).  I would like to
>     see mod_browser replaced with mod_setenvif, and the "BrowserMatch*"
>     directives added to setenvif as special cases for compatibility's
>     sake.
> 
>     I've done some fiddling with mod_setenvif to make it use RAW_ARGS
>     rather than a new ITERATE3 argument type, and added a UnSetEnvIfZero
>     flag directive to control whether "banned=0" means banned has a
>     value or is un-defined.  (I agree with Paul that the current
>     treatment of zero as true is a little ambiguous.)
> 
>     Comments?  I think being able to set envariables based upon *any* of
>     the header-fields would be a big win.
> 
>     #ken    :-)}