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 23:12:11 GMT
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, you wrote:
> James A Sutherland wrote:
> > 
> > Whatever your reasoning, a veto was premature. You vetoed an idea
> > you thought might be under discussion, before asking what was
> > being proposed.
> 
> Wrong.  You apparently don't understand how the veto process works.
> I was mistaken, but not premature.

You were premature, because you invoked a veto on an idea you hadn't even
looked at. You saw the word "rename", and leapt to completely the wrong
conclusion.

> > > > much for everyone else, I would be quite happy to do the packaging
> > > > myself...
> > >
> > > Um, I'm talking about packaging the entire Apache distribution,
> > > not just the docs.
> > 
> > So was I.
> 
> Now who's being premature? :-)

Eh? I'm sure everyone who rolls releases is quite capable of doing so with a
"cvs update" and "wget" instead of "./expand.pl; rm -f expand.pl". If I'm wrong
and everyone else is incapable of reading and typing, I can do it :-)

> > OK, we'll all go back to running CERN httpd. Functionally speaking,
> > none of the docs are "broke" - so why "fix" them? Just write-protect
> > the tree and leave the docs as they are...
> 
> Well, I guess you only like adages if you voice them. :-/

This particular adage is one which really has no place here... There are many
more aspects to consider than "is it broken? If not, leave it"!

> > Except the current contents of header.html aren't the header we
> > want, or structured in the way needed. Changing the contents of
> > header.html would break every page in docs ATM; putting the new
> > header in a new file allows for a gradual changeover.
> 
> *Now* the concept makes sense.  Looking back through this thread,
> this is the most clearly (by far) that it's been described.

Agreed; the earlier explanation was scattered across multiple posting from
multiple people, and would have required reading the thread to understand the
idea. Or asking what the idea was. IMO, you should have done one or the other
before vetoing an unknown proposal :-)

(From your comment, can I take it you have withdrawn the veto??)


James.

Mime
View raw message