Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact apache-docs-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list apache-docs@apache.org Received: (qmail 65068 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2000 20:36:26 -0000 Received: from orange.csi.cam.ac.uk (exim@131.111.8.77) by locus.apache.org with SMTP; 28 Nov 2000 20:36:26 -0000 Received: from dax.joh.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.237.83] ident=somebody) by orange.csi.cam.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 140rUF-00001T-00 for apache-docs@apache.org; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 20:36:23 +0000 From: James A Sutherland To: apache-docs@apache.org Subject: Re: HTML3.2 -> HTML4.0 Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 20:27:52 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <00112819033300.07162@dax.joh.cam.ac.uk> <3A241336.C2D1E18E@Golux.Com> In-Reply-To: <3A241336.C2D1E18E@Golux.Com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00112820362901.07236@dax.joh.cam.ac.uk> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Rating: locus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N 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.