httpd-docs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James A Sutherland <ja...@cam.ac.uk>
Subject Re: HTML3.2 -> HTML4.0
Date Tue, 28 Nov 2000 20:27:52 GMT
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, you wrote:
> James A Sutherland wrote:
> > 
> > If this is a requirement, taking a "snapshot" of the pages would do,
> > then include the source in a tarball. Perhaps better to include a
> > link to a proper installation of the docs, though.
> 
> Putting a burden on the process of packaging the software for
> distribution, solely so some files can be renamed.  For this
> reason and the effect on the repository, -1.

I never suggested a vote on the issue; you actually said that this is already
done: "the documentation is packaged as part of the Apache distribution, with
the SSIs statically 'compiled'".

You've also missed the point completely - "solely so some files can be
renamed"?! Renaming some of the files was part of the proposed method, not one
of the aims.

I don't see what you mean about "the effect on the repository", either: it's a
simple change to the HTML files in it.

I accept it involves some extra work in packaging; if the CVS tree were made
available, periodically updated, it would be a simple "wget" command to
"freeze" the documentation for a release.

> > > No.  Lots of people DO NOT want SSIs enabled, and certainly not
> > > by default.
> > 
> > Hrm... Personally, I'd provide a link to thttpd for people wanting
> > a minimal cutdown server which does nothing other than serving
> > files :-)
> 
> Who said anything about a minimal server?  Some people just don't
> want to enable SSIs.  The documentation must be readable by the
> server with which it ships, in its barest form.

So put a link to a complete server with the docs on. Or "freeze" the docs from
a server with SSI enabled.


James.

Mime
View raw message