We don't want to serve the original XML files. httpd-2.0's docs have valid XSLTs which mean that they can be rendered with modern web browsers. httpd-site's content doesn't have a XSLT. Therefore, if we exposed the raw XML files to a web browser, they wouldn't make any sense to anyone.Can I just state that this surprise really sucks? Why couldn't we follow the same protocols as in httpd-2.0/docs/manual/ where xml coexists peacefully alongside html output???
The eventual goal is not to have a docs directory in CVS at all, but we can't do that given our current infrastructure. Therefore, all of the content must be generated statically and checked into the repository. Hence, docs/ is only valid for transformations. -- justin
