httpd-docs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joshua Slive <>
Subject Re: [STATUS] (httpd-docs-1.3) Wed Dec 22 23:45:13 EST 2004
Date Tue, 04 Jan 2005 14:49:36 GMT

Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Joshua Slive wrote:
>>>Shall we revisit this and try to come up with a solution that isn't
>>>dependent on http?
>>Sure.  Drop the docs from the default tarball and point people to our many 
>>more-useful formats (web, ms-help, pdf, etc).
> I assume you're joking.  Someone who needs the documentation, and who
> can't access it online because they downloaded the software to be
> installed offline, is going to feel warm and fuzzy when it finds
> out that not only is there no documentation in the tarball, but it
> has to go back online and choose a format of docco to be downloaded
> and installed separately.
> Who are we writing this docco for?  Ourselves?  Or for people who
> need it?  Are we formatting it to make it easier for us to maintain,
> or for them to use?

The idea is not to prevent people from downloading the docs.  The idea 
is to give them a *choice* at the time of download of the doc format 
that will work best for them, rather than giving everyone the same 
format.  Yes, this means that some people will need to download two 
things instead of one, but it also means that they'll get stuff more 
appropriate to their needs.

There are other choices.  We could revert to single-language docs, we 
could do some complicated install procedure to get people the language 
they want, or we could try to split the different languages into 
different directories in such a way as to make them offline-browsable. 
None of those are particularly easy or clean, and they all preclude 
allowing the downloader to choose the appropriate format in advance.


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

View raw message