httpd-docs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Joshua Slive" <>
Subject RE: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/docs/manual/style modulesynopsis.dtd
Date Mon, 11 Mar 2002 19:13:16 GMT

> From: Patrik Grip-Jansson []

> On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Joshua Slive wrote:
> > >   Added  %inlinetags; to <default> (some docs uses <em> in <default>)
> > Could you reverse that please.
> Sure!
> The reason I added <em> was that some docs use this tag for defaults that
> are taken from different modules/directives. To allow for such cases, I
> propose that we allow <directive> with in <default>. That would allow
> links to the module where the directive in question is defined, which
> looks nice...

I understand why you want this, but I'm not sure if it is a good idea.
Won't it look awfully confusing to have a "directive in a directive".  I'd
like to keep the <default> simple and consistent so that the data can easily
be reused.

At the moment, I'm leaning towards saying that we should only allow a simple
<default>, and that anything more complicated we just leave to be explained
in <usage>.  Anyone have other opinions/suggestions.

Some examples of stuff I would rather not see:

ErrorLog logs/error_log (Unix) ErrorLog logs/error.log (Windows and OS/2)
RLimitNPROC Unset; uses operating system defaults
ProxyTimout <em>same as Timeout</em>

In the same veign, I've tride to eliminate all the complicated/multi-line
<syntax> entries.  If a syntax is too complicated to be explained in one
short line, then we need to explain it in <usage>.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message