-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.1k
Conversation
Here's what I would do: <!--
200 with plain HTTP, 404 with HTTPS:
- docs.showapi.com
example: http://docs.showapi.com/jdk7/index.html
503 with plain HTTP, refused with HTTPS:
- wap.showapi.com
No working URL known:
- static.showapi.com
-->
<ruleset name="ShowAPI.com">
<target host="showapi.com" />
<target host="www.showapi.com" />
<target host="bbs.showapi.com" />
<target host="route.showapi.com" />
<rule from="^http://bbs\.showapi\.com/(archiver|data|source|static)/" to="https://bbs.showapi.com/$1/" />
<test url="http://bbs.showapi.com/archiver/" />
<test url="http://bbs.showapi.com/data/" />
<test url="http://bbs.showapi.com/source/" />
<test url="http://bbs.showapi.com/static/" />
<!-- This exception disables the implicit test created by the target. -->
<exclusion pattern="^http://bbs\.showapi\.com/$" />
<rule from="^http://(www\.|route\.)?showapi.com/" to="https://$1showapi.com/" />
</ruleset> Also the filename would be Do you want to add |
I was using exceptions to keep the plain rewriting rule, otherwise the rules are basically just repeating subdomains that are already included in @Hainish Would it be possible to add something likes a |
The ruleset I wrote in #7957 (comment) is simple: for these domains, do these rewrites. This is a lot easier to understand in my opinion than saying rewrite everything except these other certain things. I'm opposed to something like |
I agree with @jeremyn on this - adding an attribute which changes how rewrites are performed also complicates things for our downstream dependencies, like Brave browser or libhttpseverywhere. |
@gloomy-ghost Can we finish this? |
Is there a url for actual resource under http://bbs.showapi.com/source/? I can't find any. BTW, I still think that listing all subdomains in a plain rewriting |
I can't find anything under http://bbs.showapi.com/source/ either, but it returns a 200 even though it's empty so that's good enough for me. I don't know how to answer the question in your second paragraph. Maybe a better system would merge the concept of |
|
I made the changes I described in #7957 (comment). @J0WI Can you review this please? |
No description provided.