* Joshua Slive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, [ISO-8859-15] Andr� Malo wrote: > > Thanks, Joshua! > > No problem. I dropped a new version of the pdf version in there too > http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/docs/ > I haven't really changed any of the code since the last update, but it > looks pretty good overall. The main problem is still some strange table > formatting in places. Comments on it are welcome.
I'm just learning Tex, so comments from me are reserved for the future ;-) > We could consider trying to help more people find the alternative formats. Yep. Perhaps on the index page? > It seems that most windows users would be better off with the chm than > with the format that comes with apache. And I'm still wondering if we > would be better off distributing the docs entirely separately from the > code. I'm very +1 on it (for 2.1 then). This (a) would reduce the download size of new releases much (nobody installs the documentation on a server farm) and (b) would let people give more liberty in deciding which format they want. We could give also a hint on download.cgi. Additionally I'd also suggest to exclude the xml stuff from the normal docs (also axing from the online server). That could be a separate package as well. No normal user cares about these files, so why wasting bandwith with them. That would result in a similar structure like the other projects have: xdocs vs. docs (or however we're structuring it). nd --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
