Comments on: Case-insensitive mapping with mod_rewrite’s RewriteMap http://bethesignal.org/blog/2009/03/29/case-insensitive-mapping-with-mod_rewrites-rewritemap/ where we're going, we don't need roads... Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:55:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Kelly Berger http://bethesignal.org/blog/2009/03/29/case-insensitive-mapping-with-mod_rewrites-rewritemap/#comment-4518 Kelly Berger Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:38:00 +0000 http://bethesignal.org/?p=1425#comment-4518 So, what exactly would the rewrite map look like in this case (i use text)? I want to be able to accomplish anything coming in to the web site, say uwmedicine.washington.edu, and any destination - file or directory, and match it with a destination. Would it be this [key[space]value]? /patientcare/ http://uwmedicine.washington.edu/patient-care/ so if a user typed in /PatientCare/ it will find a match based on /patientcare/. So, what exactly would the rewrite map look like in this case (i use text)? I want to be able to accomplish anything coming in to the web site, say uwmedicine.washington.edu, and any destination – file or directory, and match it with a destination.
Would it be this [key[space]value]?
/patientcare/ http://uwmedicine.washington.edu/patient-care/

so if a user typed in /PatientCare/ it will find a match based on /patientcare/.

]]> By: Jeff Waugh http://bethesignal.org/blog/2009/03/29/case-insensitive-mapping-with-mod_rewrites-rewritemap/#comment-3795 Jeff Waugh Sun, 29 Mar 2009 00:45:18 +0000 http://bethesignal.org/?p=1425#comment-3795 Ah, good call -- just ensure that characters are returned, rather than checking it explicitly. Thanks! Ah, good call — just ensure that characters are returned, rather than checking it explicitly. Thanks!

]]> By: glandium http://bethesignal.org/blog/2009/03/29/case-insensitive-mapping-with-mod_rewrites-rewritemap/#comment-3793 glandium Sat, 28 Mar 2009 20:14:48 +0000 http://bethesignal.org/?p=1425#comment-3793 You can avoid both the NOT_FOUND hack and a second map lookup (though it will be cached, it might be faster to do a regexp match/capture than a lookup ; not sure, though) with something like this: RewriteCond ${urls:%1} ^(.+)$ RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://%{HTTP_HOST}%1? [R=permanent,L] You can also change the second match to use (.*) instead of (/.*\.html) which you already know will match, since it matched in the first one, or you may want to match to use (.*) on the first one and (/.*\.html) on the second if you can have urls ending with .HTML. You can avoid both the NOT_FOUND hack and a second map lookup (though it will be cached, it might be faster to do a regexp match/capture than a lookup ; not sure, though) with something like this:
RewriteCond ${urls:%1} ^(.+)$
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://%{HTTP_HOST}%1? [R=permanent,L]

You can also change the second match to use (.*) instead of (/.*\.html) which you already know will match, since it matched in the first one, or you may want to match to use (.*) on the first one and (/.*\.html) on the second if you can have urls ending with .HTML.

]]>