On Sat, 9 Nov 2002, Andr� Malo wrote: > * Joshua Slive wrote: > > > On Fri, 8 Nov 2002, Andr� Malo wrote: > > >> Yes! should we introduce a new attribute "createanchor" (="no" in that > >> case; "yes" would be default) or something? > > > > I would lean towards no. A <module> should always have a corresponding > > documentation file. The <module> tag is sort of our contract with the > > user that there is more stuff behind it. > > hmm. I mainly thought about sentences like "blah, this is a replacement for > the old <?>mod_mmap_static</?> module". I'm not sure, what to do there. > Semantically these are (or were...) modules. Perhaps we should create an > attribute 'extern="URL"' for such cases or so?
My feeling is that <module> means current, internal apache module. That excludes obsolete modules, third party modules, etc. I think sticking with this meaning will make things clearer for the users. Of course, we can define <module> however we want, as long as we are consistent. Joshua. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
