Sample htaccess file

[Brian Turner]

Questions about using .htaccess and mod_rewrite have come up a few times here, so I've written this piece:

http://www.platinax.co.uk/52-a-simple-default-htaccess/

and included a basic .htaccess file that should help those on linux servers:

1. Redirect users to use only the www form of their domain
2. Redirect error pages to the site index page

You can find a version to edit yourself here:
http://www.platinax.co.uk/downloads/simple-htaccess.txt

Hope that helps.

[vpssupport]

Thanks Brian, I actually understood that article - I have read many over the last few months and they tended to over complicate the issue.
I do have one request, would it be possible for you to provide an example of the mod_rewrite when using a dynamic URL for an ecommerce site. I am sure that there are many out there that would benefit of having a quick tutorial.

[Brian Turner]

mod_rewrite on ecommerce sites tends to be a pretty specialist area, where the required solution tends to require customisation according to the software involved.

I really wouldn't be able to provide mod_rewrite rules for general dynamic links, because not only would it be impossible to apply to most instances, but also there is often a requirement to edit the files in the software in a custom manner as well.

The basic stuff on .htaccess for redirects is about as complex as I can get myself - mod_rewrite for dynamic URLs really is very speciaist, so no wonder it looks complicated. I have someone who works for me in this area, but I really don't understand what he does - only that it works.

[kaching]

thnx for the .htaccess file !
i wanted to ask u, if u could explain the difference from you're version and this other version?
They both work, but there is a difference in the code they use.
i don't know mayby one i better then the other?

thnx in advance

[Brian Turner]

At a glance, it looks like the second directs all users to the non-www form of the site.

Certainly I know there are sites out there that prefer that, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Personally I prefer the www-form simply because a lot of people can more easily make the association, and more likely to add www in their links.

However, the key issue is that of consistency - keeping toone form or the other, and that's simply a matter of personal preference.

Hope that helps.

[kaching]

Thnx for the quick reply

If i would choose for the non-WWW

what is the difference for me if they link to me with a www in their links. Even if the visitor gets redirect to the non-www it still holds the same value (for link-juice) in googles eyes, right?

Both the htaccess-files redirect to the non-WWW form of the site. But they don't use the same code for it, i thought mayby one is better then the other (even the result is the same)

thnx

[Brian Turner]

Well, I'm afraid I wasn't able to look at the first file properly, as I'm on the laptop and I'm having problems with my text editor on it at present.

However, I was able to look at the second version fine, which indeed looks as if it should work to use the non-www form.

Really, it's simply the case of using what works - if you find either code appears to do what's required and uses a 301 redirect, then I can't see any problem between choices.

Hope that helps.

[kaching]

oki, thnx

[Brian Turner]

Just to let you know I've updated this article - originally, I suggested full URLs when setting up redirects to error pages in .htaccess.

However, I've recently discovered that this can lead to the server returning 200 OK headers - in other words, telling search engines that the missing file is actually found - so they'll keep requesting it.

It's important to use relative redirects in .htaccess for this purpose, so I've amended the article for that.

[kaching]

hi Brain,
I just tested my server header

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 20:20:03 GMT
Server: Apache
Last-Modified: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 20:25:30 GMT
ETag: "7413f-47ee-4554e03a"
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Content-Length: 18414
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html

Do i understand you correctly that this isn't good because of the 200 OK ?
I'm using you're example http://www.platinax.co.uk/downloads/simple-htaccess.txt

thnx inadance!