On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Matthew> Based on the proposal's use of http://localhost/, or some > Matthew> other criteria? > > Right now, if I arrange for images to be referenced in > /var/www/, they are accessible elsewhere (I did something like that > when I used to maintain LaTeX2HTML -- the images were available both > locally using a fil:// url as well as from off machine).
What magic, precisely, did you use to achieve that? Apart from having the whole HTMLized document in /var/www (which, IIRC, we do here - I don't manage documentation) and using proper relative links. > Were I to follow this proposed polisy, that would not be the case. That is true. We'd need to place a symlink of /usr/share/images in /images (noooo, I'm not suggesting that!). What is important, though, IMHO, is that there is a consistent place to put images, which is guaranteed (as far as practicable, anyway) to be available by the web server. This prevents such problems as sparked this amendment - putting images in /usr/share/doc <shudder> - and also, if we can make it somewhere other than /var/www, reduces the chances of breaking locally created websites. I've always thought of /var/www as being pretty much like /home - there might be default contents in there on install, but after that we leave it well alone. I think, also, that your experience with LaTeX2HTML might have been different to what this amendment is proposing. Not that anything which may be a picture viewable by a web browser go in /usr/share/images/, but that images which come with a package for web pages go there (hence the by-package naming, a-la /usr/share/doc). > Matthew> Also, I've noticed recent discussion on teams that are > Matthew> seriously short of manpower, and -policy editors was one of > Matthew> the groups that came up. > > Perhaps. But the part we need most help with is flushing out > the issues in the BTS, updating the bugs to reflect the current > status, and kick starting moribund discussions (or flushing the > issues out). I'll get onto that, then, I guess. > We are also on the cusp of starting a rewrite of policy as a > tight, specs/standards document, and a good practices document (look > for the discussion between aj and Julian in this list). So, looking > at items in current policy, and deciding where they belong in the new > set of documents would help the process. I think I'll triage bugs for a while, since I'm not particularly familiar with the exact scope of the two documents. I know the general idea, and I agree, but not being a big part of the discussion, I'm hesitant to stomp in with my size 11's and do damage. > The actual writing to CVS and uploading the package itself is > less of a bottleneck, but we'll need to get more people in that set > as well. Well, if there is cutting-and-pasting that needs to be done, I'm more than happy to pick up my trusty text editor[1] and do some block shifting. I can string sentences together, too, if that's needed. <g> [1] Not going to start an editor war by mentioning which one... - Matt
