Mailing-List: contact docs-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: docs@httpd.apache.org
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:32:44 +0100
From: Astrid =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ke=DFler?= <kess@kess-net.de>
Organization: Kess-Net
Message-ID: <83-422055974.20040324143244@kess-net.de>
To: Joshua Slive <docs@httpd.apache.org>
Subject: Re: cvs commit: httpd-dist/docs README.html
In-Reply-To: <Pine.WNT.4.58.0403231525430.1796@HEC-4949>
References: <20040323182525.17591.qmail@minotaur.apache.org>
 <20040323204012.38fba65d@parker> <Pine.WNT.4.58.0403231525430.1796@HEC-4949>

> We could consider trying to help more people find the alternative formats.
> It seems that most windows users would be better off with the chm than
> with the format that comes with apache.  And I'm still wondering if we
> would be better off distributing the docs entirely separately from the
> code.

nd and I discussed this point several times. There are a lot of
advantages distributing the documentation seperately.
- The code distribution will be much smaler.
- Most people do not need all languages.
- A lot of admins do not install/want/need the documentation on production
  machines.
... and other advantages. But we have one problem: we do not have an offline
html documentation. Our docs need a properly installed server. So we
have to build offline html documents or we have to offer an installation
skript if we want to distribute the documentation seperately.

 Kess

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