> From: Patrik Grip-Jansson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Joshua Slive wrote: > > > > Added %inlinetags; to <default> (some docs uses <em> in <default>) > > Could you reverse that please. > > Sure! > > The reason I added <em> was that some docs use this tag for defaults that > are taken from different modules/directives. To allow for such cases, I > propose that we allow <directive> with in <default>. That would allow > links to the module where the directive in question is defined, which > looks nice... I understand why you want this, but I'm not sure if it is a good idea. Won't it look awfully confusing to have a "directive in a directive". I'd like to keep the <default> simple and consistent so that the data can easily be reused. At the moment, I'm leaning towards saying that we should only allow a simple <default>, and that anything more complicated we just leave to be explained in <usage>. Anyone have other opinions/suggestions. Some examples of stuff I would rather not see: ErrorLog logs/error_log (Unix) ErrorLog logs/error.log (Windows and OS/2) RLimitNPROC Unset; uses operating system defaults ProxyTimout <em>same as Timeout</em> etc... In the same veign, I've tride to eliminate all the complicated/multi-line <syntax> entries. If a syntax is too complicated to be explained in one short line, then we need to explain it in <usage>. Joshua. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
