httpd-docs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From André Malo>
Subject Re: common docs infrastructure
Date Thu, 06 Mar 2003 14:42:53 GMT
* Jacek Prucia wrote:

> but it feels kinda wrong to start everything from scratch,
> since we have httpd-docs subproject. A common look'n'feel for documentation
> for all httpd subprojects -- sure sounds great.

Of course, that would be cool. But, there are some further issues that have 
to be solved. Currently the httpd-docs-2.0 repos is actually a symlink of 
httpd-2.0/docs (and will be released with httpd at all). So if/when we 
start with covering all httpd subprojects under a "httpd-docs", we should 
think about a more common repository structure. BTW: afaics, the actual 
subproject is httpd-test, not flood, isn't it (not sure...)?

> 1. common.xsl is not really common... there are templates (super-menu for
> example) that are really httpd specific. So to use common.xsl for all
> subprojects, we schould really rewrite it to be truly common. Specific
> templates schould be in httpd.xsl and flood.xsl.

xsl templates are by nature quite specific. As said above, the current 
repos is meant for httpd (has also the same branch point 2.0/2.1 etc).
When we restructure all the stuff, let's rethink the xsl files resp. the 
places where they are stored. At this point it seems to be too early to get 
specific with this.

> 2. After setting up all flood related files (ant build files, stylesheets), it
> would be great if we could integrate them into httpd-docs-build repo. That
> would probably mean that schould be rewritten to accept project
> name as first argument, or something along those lines.

patches welcome ;-))

> 3. Flood docs are really menat to be used on desktop machine. So besides plain
> HTML (without MultiViews language extensions) a PDF file would be great.

hmm. And how to you want to distribute different languages? 
Language-Packages? This should differ from the online version anyway, where 
a webserver is running and content-negotiation can apply.

Side note: there are some outstanding changes, according to 
content-negotitation. Type-maps, easier cross-language-switching, etc. 
Partially dependent on outstanding webserver patches ;-)

> To
> achieve this we could use Apache XML subproject -- Fop. If we could
> develop common-fo.xsl, then httpd docs also could be transformed into PDF.
> However that means schould accept another argument -- docs format.

The pdf stuff is already in progress. Although fop is not the best 
available PDF renderer, because it's quite limited -- for some reason it's 
currently the choice.
It's however, nearly ready, the last issues have to be resolved (font 
issues, some technical fun like unique anchor IDs etc.)

> If anything written above seems simply too hard to achieve for some reason,
> then fine -- we can have docs on our own. On the other hand -- it would be
> great if we could at least have common look'n'feel. Please post your opinions.

Some actual suggestions about, where to store the flood docs contents and 
how to structure the httpd-docs fun would be cool.

> BTW. Since I had serious reason to post here, let me point out another small
> issue: Why httpd-docs-build/lib dir is *so* bloated?

Why not? ;-) All a bit of legacy stuff here. I don't have write access 
there. Someone else could clean up it a bit (Joshua, Erik? ;-)

s  s^saaaaaoaaaoaaaaooooaaoaaaomaaaa  a  alataa  aaoat  a  a
a maoaa a laoata  a  oia a o  a m a  o  alaoooat aaool aaoaa
matooololaaatoto  aaa o a  o ms;s;\s;s;g;y;s;:;s;y#mailto: #
 \51/\134\137| #;print;# >

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

View raw message