Re: [proposed] remove docs/1.3/

2012-02-28 Thread Nick Kew
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 12:30:48 -0500 Rich Bowen rbo...@rcbowen.com wrote: We're already using the link rel=canonical href=http://httpd.apache.org/docs/current// to tell Google not to index the pages, although that's not (yet) on all of the 1.3 doc pages - Unfortunately that's something

Re: [proposed] remove docs/1.3/

2012-02-28 Thread Rich Bowen
On Feb 26, 2012, at 12:52 PM, Nick Kew wrote: We're already using the link rel=canonical href=http://httpd.apache.org/docs/current// to tell Google not to index the pages, although that's not (yet) on all of the 1.3 doc pages - Unfortunately that's something of a manual process due

Re: [proposed] remove docs/1.3/

2012-02-27 Thread William A. Rowe Jr.
On 2/26/2012 2:11 PM, André Malo wrote: * William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: On 2/25/2012 10:09 AM, minf...@apache.org wrote: Author: minfrin Date: Sat Feb 25 16:09:03 2012 New Revision: 1293634 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1293634view=rev Log: The current version of the server is

Re: [proposed] remove docs/1.3/

2012-02-27 Thread Graham Leggett
On 27 Feb 2012, at 6:00 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: Because 1.3 code and docs are no longer maintained. Because 1.3 docs shipped in the tarball, they got the whole deal when they downloaded it. By continuing to publish something out-of-date, we imply to users that there is some support

Re: [proposed] remove docs/1.3/

2012-02-27 Thread Tom Evans
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 4:00 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: Because 1.3 code and docs are no longer maintained.  Because 1.3 docs shipped in the tarball, they got the whole deal when they downloaded it. By continuing to publish something out-of-date, we imply to users that

Re: [proposed] remove docs/1.3/

2012-02-27 Thread André Malo
* William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: On 2/26/2012 2:11 PM, André Malo wrote: * William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: Doesn't it seem overtime to take down 1.3 docs from the site, altogether? Why? Because 1.3 code and docs are no longer maintained. Because 1.3 docs shipped in the tarball, they got the

Re: [proposed] remove docs/1.3/

2012-02-27 Thread Tim Bannister
On 27 Feb 2012, at 19:16, André Malo wrote: A compromise I'd actively support would be: - to not only put these red blocks above each document, but provide 'position: fixed' block, being always visible (for modern browsers) (maybe on the left side, simply saying UNSUPPORTED SOFTWARE or

Re: [proposed] remove docs/1.3/

2012-02-27 Thread Rich Bowen
On Feb 27, 2012, at 2:16 PM, André Malo wrote: A compromise I'd actively support would be: - to not only put these red blocks above each document, but provide 'position: fixed' block, being always visible (for modern browsers) (maybe on the left side, simply saying UNSUPPORTED

Re: [proposed] remove docs/1.3/

2012-02-26 Thread Graham Leggett
On 26 Feb 2012, at 9:35 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: Ok folks, it's been a few years... over 10, in fact, that 1.3 has been dead. Doesn't it seem overtime to take down 1.3 docs from the site, altogether? I find that from time to time, v1.3 documentation comes up in Google searches, which

Re: [proposed] remove docs/1.3/

2012-02-26 Thread Jeff Trawick
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 2:35 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: On 2/25/2012 10:09 AM, minf...@apache.org wrote: Author: minfrin Date: Sat Feb 25 16:09:03 2012 New Revision: 1293634 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1293634view=rev Log: The current version of the server

Re: [proposed] remove docs/1.3/

2012-02-26 Thread Tim Bannister
On 26 Feb 2012, at 10:34, Graham Leggett wrote: On 26 Feb 2012, at 9:35 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: Ok folks, it's been a few years... over 10, in fact, that 1.3 has been dead. Doesn't it seem overtime to take down 1.3 docs from the site, altogether? I find that from time to time,

Re: [proposed] remove docs/1.3/

2012-02-26 Thread Tim Bannister
On 26 Feb 2012, at 10:34, Graham Leggett wrote: On 26 Feb 2012, at 9:35 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: Ok folks, it's been a few years... over 10, in fact, that 1.3 has been dead. The other thing I want to add is that 1.3 is dead but not buried; there are still servers running httpd 1.3.x

Re: [proposed] remove docs/1.3/

2012-02-26 Thread Rich Bowen
On Feb 26, 2012, at 7:30 AM, Tim Bannister wrote: On 26 Feb 2012, at 10:34, Graham Leggett wrote: On 26 Feb 2012, at 9:35 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: Ok folks, it's been a few years... over 10, in fact, that 1.3 has been dead. Doesn't it seem overtime to take down 1.3 docs from the

Re: [proposed] remove docs/1.3/

2012-02-26 Thread André Malo
* William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: On 2/25/2012 10:09 AM, minf...@apache.org wrote: Author: minfrin Date: Sat Feb 25 16:09:03 2012 New Revision: 1293634 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1293634view=rev Log: The current version of the server is v2.4. Modified:

Re: [proposed] remove docs/1.3/

2012-02-26 Thread André Malo
Folks, please keep this discussion on docs@, too. * Rich Bowen wrote: On Feb 26, 2012, at 7:30 AM, Tim Bannister wrote: On 26 Feb 2012, at 10:34, Graham Leggett wrote: On 26 Feb 2012, at 9:35 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: Ok folks, it's been a few years... over 10, in fact, that 1.3 has

[proposed] remove docs/1.3/

2012-02-25 Thread William A. Rowe Jr.
On 2/25/2012 10:09 AM, minf...@apache.org wrote: Author: minfrin Date: Sat Feb 25 16:09:03 2012 New Revision: 1293634 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1293634view=rev Log: The current version of the server is v2.4. Modified: