httpd-docs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joshua Slive <jos...@slive.ca>
Subject Re: /docs vs /docs-2.0
Date Mon, 08 Apr 2002 02:29:27 GMT

On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, Rich Bowen wrote:

> On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, Chris Pepper wrote:
>
> > At 6:01 PM -0800 2002/04/06, Daniel Lopez wrote:
> > >That may break existing links out there to 1.3 specific documentation.
> > >You will have the same problem when 2.1 is released.
> > >Even if you make the alias to docs I would encourage that all
> > >"official" links are
> > >fully qualified with the version number, so the links do not break when a
> > >new release happens. It can be docs-2.0, docs-2.1 or /2.0/docs, /2.1/docs
> > >
> > >
> > >I suggest keeping docs/ to the 1.3 version and from now on
> >
> > 	Perhaps /docs should be a link page to various version-specific docs?
>
> Well, I think Daniel's point is that pages (outside of the Apache site)
> have links to specific docs within the /docs tree, which may or may not
> exist in the 2.0 (or 2.1) docs later on.

Yes.  I'm a *big* fan of long-lived functional URLs.  It was probably a
mistake to ever have a "docs" link without a version in it, but I think
now we should not touch those pages.  It could break thousands of external
links.  Just offering a "please look over here" is not good enough, in my
opinion.  (In reality, the filenames under docs-2.0 are close enough to
the ones under docs that only a portion of the links would be broken.
But I still think it is a bad idea.)

At some point in the future, it may be good to figure out a way to add a
header to all those pages saying ("The docs for the current version are
over there"), but for now, I recommend just leaving things as-is.

Joshua.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org


Mime
View raw message