On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Chris Pepper wrote:
I like the new organization, but think the alpha listing is also worthwhile.
Why? What does it offer that directives.html does not? (ie. In what circumstances would someone have to spend a non-trivial amount of extra time searching for something because the alpha listing was removed?)
Sorry -- I had forgotten that there are currently two alpha lists of directives. Yes, two alpha and one grouped would be silly (even more silly than two consecutive alpha lists, as now? :) ).
I think the Modules listings are better -- from the main doc page, change:
* Run-time configuration directives * Modules: By Type or Alphabetical
to
* Run-time configuration directives: By Type or Alphabetical * Modules: By Type or Alphabetical
and put a similar prefatory para in both versions linking to the others, as in the Modules docco.
> How about putting them into core-toc.html andcore-toc-alpha.html or equivalent, then linking to the actual explanations?
Not a bad idea. core.html is big enough that breaking it up could be okay. However, I still don't see the benefit to all this. The costs I have outlined in my previous email.
Huh? I'm talking about breaking core.html into sections like core-process.html, and core-files.html, instead of the single core.html. This doesn't require parallel maintenance of two versions. The only downside, which is significant, is that you can no longer use browser's Find command to find all occurrences of a word in the whole core.html.
> I also think it would be nice to have the relevantstuff connected. Currently, when reading up on things, I do a lot of cross-referencing across the whole core doc (by far the one I spend the most time in); it would be nice to have the likely cross-references in the same document....
Hmmm... Yes, cross-references are good. Wouldn't it be better to include these as "See also" listings in the actual directive definitions? That way, the cross-references would be there no matter how you get to the directives. Could you give some examples of what type of cross-references you are thinking about?
The "See also" and inline links are what I mean by cross-references. They're present now, and very useful, but sectioning core.html would make it convenient to read a whole section, rather than following many cross-references, and hoping not to read the same thing twice or miss something important.
Ideally, this could address the same issue as the Location, Files, etc. and Virtual Hosts documents, but that's a second-stage question.
By the way, welcome to the list, and thanks for your feedback.
Joshua.
Thanks. Apache is great, but you all already knew that.
Chris
PS-Have you all considered moving "See Also" to the end of the Syntax/Default/Context/Status block? I think this would be aesthetically nicer....
-- Chris Pepper | Shooting Gallery Interactive | 212 905-2200
