httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Richards <>
Subject Re: Documentation standards
Date Mon, 25 Nov 1996 17:51:06 GMT
Paul Sutton <> writes:

> No, I was suggesting a separate directory for the 'what's new' section of
> each release. We are planning to distribute this historical information
> with the release anyway (at least, I hope that is the plan since it is
> pretty useful), so this is purely an issue of where we put the files.  At
> the moment, all the what's new information from 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2 lives in
> the same directory. 

There are the new_features files which may become a problem with lots
of releases but not worth worrying about now.

> As an example of why this is a bad idea, the what's new for Apache 1.0 has
> a section on content negotiation, which was updated a lot for that
> release. This is in the file 'content-negotiation.html'. I've got a
> document ready to commit all about how content negotiation is updated in
> 1.2, and I've called it content-negotiation.html, since that seems
> logical. But if I commit it, the link from 1.0's What's New will go to the
> 1.2 content-negotiation document. So I could rename mine to (say) 
> content-negotiation-1-2.html.  And so on for the other aspects of Apache

You're documentation should not be 1.2 specific. The documentation on
content-negotiation should document content-negotiation for all
versions listing any differences with previous versions. The link
from the 1.0 new_feaures page will still point to this document. That
link just signifies that this feature was added at that time and
*should not* be a link to the version of the documentation that was
available with 1.0. That's not how it's supposed to work.

  Paul Richards. Originative Solutions Ltd.  (Netcraft Ltd. contractor)
  Elsevier Science TIS online journal project.
  Phone: 0370 462071 (Mobile), +44 (0)1865 843155

View raw message