Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact apache-docs-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list apache-docs@apache.org Received: (qmail 4355 invoked from network); 27 Feb 2001 15:30:51 -0000 Received: from dsl081-019-108-sea1.dsl-isp.net (HELO www.reppep.com) (64.81.19.108) by h31.sny.collab.net with SMTP; 27 Feb 2001 15:30:51 -0000 Received: from [129.85.129.31] (salt.rockefeller.edu [129.85.129.31]) by www.reppep.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA16593; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 10:30:55 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: pepper@mail.reppep.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3A964919.3C73888E@Golux.Com> References: <3A964919.3C73888E@Golux.Com> Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 10:28:13 -0500 To: apache-docs@apache.org From: Chris Pepper Subject: Re: prototype FAQ Cc: apache-docs@apache.org, Rodent of Unusual Size Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N At 6:27 AM -0500 2001/02/23, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: >Joshua Slive wrote: >> >> 4. Changed the format of the Q&A to

s rather than a big >>
. There is no longer any numbering in the FAQ. > >-1. I often refer people to specific questions by number. >Hard-code them into the
if you like, but use an
>for the index. And continue to have a link for a single massive >all-inclusive page -- otherwise printing is a major PITA. I'd be happy to have each Q/A tagged with a unique fragment extracted from its name. Are the numbers themselves important to you, Ken? > > I believe we should just give up on the idea of having a >> plain-text FAQ to post to usenet. That created a bunch of >> complication and nobody every actually did it anyway. > >-1. Just because it has not been done does not mean we >should make it more difficult to do than it already is. >Besides, it is still on my to-do list. This seems much less important to me than the request to have a monolithic version available for printing, which isn't an issue for me personally, but I can see the point of. If we have a monolithic HTML version, I'm happy to have a lynx or fairly dumb HTML parser strip it to text, should we ever need it. Please remove the veto on making ASCIIfying any more difficult than it already is; if you have a requirement that it be feasible, and we keep that in mind as an objective, we have a lot more room to work Is it truly complicated to build a simplified SSI page that just INCLUDES all the individual pages, so we can not worry about this in writing individual pages, and maybe end up with a little extra content? Does using header/footer includes for everything except in the individual FAQ pages make this easier to do and maintain? FAQ.html looks complicated but not monstrous now. I'd be perfectly happy with an index page linking to all the questions on individual pages, and each page replicating its own section of the index (to be fancy, we could have the index page build itself sequentially from the individual page indices to avoid sync issues, but that's a secondary optimization). Then complete.shtml could concatenate head.shtml, index.shtml, faq*.shtml, and footer.shtml for printing or mailing. Chris -- Chris Pepper: Rockefeller U Computing Services: Mac OS X Software: