httpd-docs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Pepper <pep...@mail.reppep.com>
Subject Re: reorg of core.html
Date Mon, 09 Oct 2000 17:20:55 GMT
At 8:59 AM -0700 2000/10/09, Joshua Slive wrote:
>On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Chris Pepper wrote:
>
>>	I like the new organization, but think the alpha listing is
>>  also worthwhile.
>
>Why?  What does it offer that directives.html does not?
>(ie. In what circumstances would someone have to spend a non-trivial
>amount of extra time searching for something because the alpha listing
>was removed?)

	Sorry -- I had forgotten that there are currently two alpha 
lists of directives. Yes, two alpha and one grouped would be silly 
(even more silly than two consecutive alpha lists, as now? :) ).

	I think the Modules listings are better -- from the main doc 
page, change:

>*	Run-time configuration directives
>*	Modules: By Type or Alphabetical

	to

>*	Run-time configuration directives: By Type or Alphabetical
>*	Modules: By Type or Alphabetical

	and put a similar prefatory para in both versions linking to 
the others, as in the Modules docco.

>  > How about putting them into core-toc.html and
>>  core-toc-alpha.html or equivalent, then linking to the actual
>>  explanations?
>
>Not a bad idea.  core.html is big enough that breaking it up could be
>okay.  However, I still don't see the benefit to all this.  The costs
>I have outlined in my previous email.

	Huh? I'm talking about breaking core.html into sections like 
core-process.html, and core-files.html, instead of the single 
core.html. This doesn't require parallel maintenance of two versions. 
The only downside, which is significant, is that you can no longer 
use browser's Find command to find all occurrences of a word in the 
whole core.html.

>  > I also think it would be nice to have the relevant
>>  stuff connected. Currently, when reading up on things, I do a lot of
>>  cross-referencing across the whole core doc (by far the one I spend
>>  the most time in); it would be nice to have the likely
>>  cross-references in the same document....
>
>Hmmm... Yes, cross-references are good.  Wouldn't it be better to
>include these as "See also" listings in the actual directive definitions?
>That way, the cross-references would be there no matter how you get
>to the directives.  Could you give some examples of what type of
>cross-references you are thinking about?

	The "See also" and inline links are what I mean by 
cross-references. They're present now, and very useful, but 
sectioning core.html would make it convenient to read a whole 
section, rather than following many cross-references, and hoping not 
to read the same thing twice or miss something important.

	Ideally, this could address the same issue as the Location, 
Files, etc. and Virtual Hosts documents, but that's a second-stage 
question.

>By the way, welcome to the list, and thanks for your feedback.
>
>Joshua.

	Thanks. Apache is great, but you all already knew that.


						Chris
PS-Have you all considered moving "See Also" to the end of the 
Syntax/Default/Context/Status block? I think this would be 
aesthetically nicer....

-- 
Chris Pepper | Shooting Gallery Interactive | 212 905-2200

Mime
View raw message