[wp-hackers] RE: .htaccess cleanup
false.hopes at gmail.com
Sun May 22 22:45:49 GMT 2005
If you ask me, all of this is a bit of premature optimization. If
anyone care to look up mod_rewrite benchmark, you'll see that it
easily handles thousands of rules without a hiccup. Unless the
intention is to make things easier on someone that wants to have their
own rules in their .htaccess, I think all should stay as is. Why
change something that has been proven to work well?
On 5/22/05, Kimmo Suominen <kimmo+key+wordpress.c4f53f at suominen.com> wrote:
> On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 02:38:04PM -0500, Ryan Boren wrote:
> > On Sun, 2005-05-22 at 22:00 +0300, Kimmo Suominen wrote:
> > > I have those rules commented out in my .htaccess, but I haven't put in a
> > > comment on why I'm not using them.
> > >
> > > I did some experimenting now, and the rules work fine except that I never
> > > get a 404 error for URL's that don't exist. I just get the "root blog"
> > > page (i.e. most recent posts).
> > WP itself should handle issuing a 404. There was a bug with this in 1.5
> > where the 404 wasn't always issued properly, but that should be fixed in
> > 1.5.1[.1]. WP will also display the 404 template, if present. If not,
> > you will see the regular index. Well-behaved themes should have a
> > separate 404 template or handle the is_404() condition in their index.
> > The default theme has a 404 template. The Classic theme does not.
> Ryan -- thanks for the pointer -- that's it! I'm not checking for
> is_404() in the embedding index.
> Yet another reason to do the embedding "the other way around," i.e.
> by calling the non-wp parts from within a custom theme.
> Thanks again!
> + Kim
> <A HREF="http://kimmo.suominen.com/">Kimmo Suominen</A>
> wp-hackers mailing list
> wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
More information about the wp-hackers