httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Sutton <p...@ukweb.com>
Subject Re: Documentation standards
Date Mon, 25 Nov 1996 16:01:37 GMT
On 25 Nov 1996, Paul Richards wrote:
> > Finally, where do the 'new-in-1.2' docs go? At the moment they are in the
> > manual directory itself. I think they should be in a sub-directory (say
> > "new12") instead. This'll make updating to a new release easier -- and
> > prevent naming conflicts when a feature is updated in more than one
> > release. Otherwise we'll end up with a whole bunch of docs in 'manual'
> > relating to what's new in various versions. 
> 
> I don't understand most of the above other than the suggestion that we
> use separate directories for releases which is what we just dropped
> because it was a mess.

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. 

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
that have changed in multiple versions. This leads to a crowded and
confusing directory, especially since this is the top level of the Apache
manual.

Paul
UK Web Ltd


Mime
View raw message