What about obsolete directives? Ken's comment applies to them also.
Raymond S Brand
Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>
> > Raymond S Brand wrote:
> > >
> > > This change bothers me, but I don't have a strong objection to it.
> >
> > Yes, it's not particularly friendly to require someone to have
> > to drill down just to find out he can't use something. Please
> > reconsider this, Joshua.
>
> Given that people feel that way, I'll reverse it.
>
> However, I disagree with your logic. You are essentially assuming that
> people with Apache 1.2 are going to be coming to the website and trying to
> use the 1.3 docs, and that we should be trying to make life very easy for
> them. (There was one module that was added during 1.3.whatever, but that
> is clearly the exception.) I have left in the information that tells
> people which modules are obsolete, so they won't have to go looking
> through mod_cookies or mod_log_common.
>
> In my opinion, the information people are much more likely interested in
> having "at a glance" is whether they can actually use a module "right
> now". This would be the "status" rather than the "compatibility".
> The presence of compatibility in this index seems to be a historic
> artifact, rather than a planned decision.
>
> I addition, the presence of that extra bit of information made the index
> considerably busier visually, and therefore harder to skim.
>
> Anyway, unless you change your mind, I will reverse it.
>
> Joshua.
