httpd-docs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jorge Schrauwen" <>
Subject Re: On line docs
Date Wed, 03 Oct 2007 12:40:00 GMT
On 10/3/07, Joshua Slive <> wrote:
> On 10/2/07, Tony Stevenson <> wrote:
> > Good day one and all,
> >
> > With the threads [1] on dev@ discussing the end of 1.3 support,
> > gathering some pace, I wanted to re-raise something that really bugs me
> > just as I know it does other too.
> >
> > When going to it defaults to
> > the 1.3 version of the documentation, I would like to see this either
> > removed, or people are redirected to 2.2 at least.  This could be
> > changed at a later date, as and when the next major release, is er,
> > released.
> Oh man, not this topic again. ;-) You guys should search the archives
> a little. This always causes a heated debate.
> To clarify, the stuff directly under /docs/ (with no version number)
> is not the "default" docs; it is a bunch of legacy urls that redirect
> to the canonical location of what once lived there. None of our
> content should currently link there, and it should never be used for
> anything.
> So exactly what problem are you trying to solve? If you just don't
> like the idea that stuff under there redirects to an obsolete version,
> I say learn to live with it. Because the alternative is to break a ton
> of legacy links to the 1.3 docs. (Broken in one of two sense: either
> broken 404 because the new docs don't necessarily have all the same
> pages; or broken because someone really intended to link to 1.3, not
> the most recent version.) I HATE breaking urls.
> On the other hand, feal very free to spruce up the /docs/ index page,
> and perhaps also update the ssi header include file used in the 1.3
> docs. It currently says "Is this the version you want? For more recent
> versions, check our documentation index." I believe it could say "You
> are reading the documentation for an obsolete version of the server.
> For the current version, check our documentation index." And we could
> perhaps try to provide direct links to the appropriate place in the
> 2.2 docs where appropriate.
> Joshua.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:
I see your concern with breaking links from other sides but what about
something like this:

every request that has a non empty referal field goes to 1.3 so links don't
the onces with a blank one to a page witch a chose between 1.3 , 2.0, 2.2,

Just some ideas


View raw message