Re: Paths vs. Hosts

Vincent Gevers wrote:

going for paths only is fine by me, all we need is to get lib_general.inc.php (include_path?) which defines PATH_ROOT and include problems should be solved, using full paths..

Agreed. I just didn't feel like ripping apart the RFC includes until the air was generally good about my proposal. Something like this in lib_general.inc.php would solve this (incomplete -- needs to check for pre-existing path): set_include_path(get_include_path() . PATH_SEPARATOR . dirname(realpath(__FILE__))); Then the files could use "./../../include/lib_general.inc.php" (number of ../ is variable).

I saw the patch.. would be nice if you can make it PEAR CS..

Heh. Ironic, huh? I wrote most of this patch before proposing CS. I'll comb it and get back to you.

yeah.. http://docweb.phpdoc.info/copyright.php but I don't think that would be hard to fix, just setting as www/all I guess

Yes, the site is forced to use URLs, which is difficult supporting two schemes (see mail to Goba & list). With paths-only, this becomes much easier (no lang/proj specified? use default. No need to forward).

about the RFC System.. I think WEB_ROOT and PATH_ROOT should be used there, won't that fix all url and path problems there? also, i don't think that we really need long urls like /php/nl/rfc/rfc-overview.php /rfc/.. would be fine IMO

Good point. I'm confused, though. Would we only host one /rfc/? I think it would be useful, for instance, to let the french have their own PEPr-workalike. I also intent to do a bit of i18n to the project, at some point. This would lend well to having a specific language, even for resources that aren't translation-specific (/copyright.php -- in many languages). We'll discuss i18n later, but I guess we should resolve this specific part, now. S