httpd-docs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rodent of Unusual Size <Ken.C...@Golux.Com>
Subject Re: HTML3.2 -> HTML4.0
Date Tue, 28 Nov 2000 21:16:11 GMT
James A Sutherland wrote:
> > 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;

That's not a vote, it's a veto.

> you actually said that this is already done: "the documentation
> is packaged as part of the Apache distribution, with the SSIs
> statically 'compiled'".

So foo.html looks the same whether you're looking at it on the
Apache site, a mirror, or your local installation, whether the
result is being produced with SSIs (the former two) or not (the

> 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.

Chris wrote:
>         Don't know, but if we do the switch by hand, I'd like to use 
> .shtml or something instead of the .html to make headers & footers 
> easier to distinguish. This may also make it easier to do the change 
> over time -- header.shtml can be the newer larger header, and any 
> hits on header.html in *.html are old files to fix.

Perhaps I did miss the point.  In which case I don't see what the
point actually is here.  Chris?

> 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.

Renaming files inside a repository creates headaches.  Lots of
headaches.  Big ones.  Adding new files, as I now understand
Chris to be saying, doesn't create headaches, just possibly some

> 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.

Easily said, since you aren't one of the ones doing the packaging.. :-)

> So put a link to a complete server with the docs on.

No good.  Lots of installations are done off-net or in intranets
w/o access.

> Or "freeze" the docs from a server with SSI enabled.

That's what's essentially done now, except it isn't done through
the Web, but by a script.  Take a look at the 'how to roll a release'
document on to see how it's currently done.

In essence, I don't see any advantages here, and some disadvantages
for people who aren't on the docco project.  But maybe I'm still
missing the point.
#ken    P-)}

Ken Coar                    <http://Golux.Com/coar/>
Apache Software Foundation  <>
"Apache Server for Dummies" <http://Apache-Server.Com/>
"Apache Server Unleashed"   <http://ApacheUnleashed.Com/>

View raw message