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 Fri, 07 Mar 2003 19:08:29 GMT
* Jacek Prucia wrote:

> Yes, but moving docs stuff outside main httpd-2.0 tree seems to be easy at
> least for official releases. There is nifty release script, that does half of
> the RM work, and it could take care of this (fetching xml's from cvs,
> translating to html/PDF, moving output file to proper locations inside
> httpd-2.0 tree). However, fresh httpd-2.0 checkout would have empty
> docs/manual dir which kinda sucks.

yes and no. For now we decided to put the translated docs into the CVS, 
mostly because the RM cannot control whether the docs stuff is correctly 
translated (different languages). Further a simple cvs checkout is 
sufficient to keep the docs up to date online.

> Yeah, restructuring is a load of work. So for now I'll just copy common.xsl,
> and tweak it a bit for flood needs. Later on, well think about a merge.

ACK. We'll have then also some more specific info about our common and 
different needs.

>> hmm. And how to you want to distribute different languages?
>> Language-Packages?
> Yes. But to be honest flood isn't (and won't be in near future) as popular as
> Apache web server. So I don't suspect there will be pressing need for
> translation.

Let's design it as it could be.

>>> 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.
> Can I get my dirty hands on some tarball/repo? Maybe I could use some stuff in
> flood documentation.

probably. Give me some days to collect the current state :)

>> Although fop is not the best
>> available PDF renderer, because it's quite limited -- for some reason it's
>> currently the choice.
> Can you name a problem or two? I'm just curious. I think that fop, or at least
> compatibile xml:fo engine is the best choice.

only static tables, still some font problems (e.g. automatic font 
selection) and some redering problems (e.g. footnotes sometimes overlap the 

> LaTeX is really the best
> software for such task, but it is a one hundred pound gorilla to install and
> configure -- that would make building docs error prone.

We can workaround the fop problems, until they are fixed. If it doesn't 
work, we can still decide to use latex(2pdf) or something.

> httpd-docs/
>    build.cmd
>    target/
>       httpd.xml
>       flood.xml
>    lib/
>    style/
>       common.xsl
>       httpd.xsl
>       flood.xsl
>    httpd-1.3/
>    httpd-2.0/
>    flood/
>    output/

yes, this way would be a possibility (but need some more time to figure it 
out more specific). Where are all the docs people? Say something! ;-)

Wenn nur Ingenieure mit Diplom programmieren würden, hätten wir
wahrscheinlich weniger schlechte Software.
Wir hätten allerdings auch weniger gute Software.
                                   -- Felix von Leitner in dasr

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

View raw message