httpd-docs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joshua Slive <>
Subject Re: broken links at
Date Sat, 09 Nov 2002 02:48:33 GMT

On Sat, 9 Nov 2002, André Malo wrote:

> * Joshua Slive wrote:
> > On Fri, 8 Nov 2002, André Malo wrote:
> >> Yes! should we introduce a new attribute "createanchor" (="no" in that
> >> case; "yes" would be default) or something?
> >
> > I would lean towards no.  A <module> should always have a corresponding
> > documentation file.  The <module> tag is sort of our contract with the
> > user that there is more stuff behind it.
> hmm. I mainly thought about sentences like "blah, this is a replacement for
> the old <?>mod_mmap_static</?> module". I'm not sure, what to do there.
> Semantically these are (or were...) modules. Perhaps we should create an
> attribute 'extern="URL"' for such cases or so?

My feeling is that <module> means current, internal apache module.  That
excludes obsolete modules, third party modules, etc.  I think sticking
with this meaning will make things clearer for the users.

Of course, we can define <module> however we want, as long as we are


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

View raw message