Following on Chris' comments, here is a patch to directive-dict.html
This wasn't much work, but changing all the docs to use this consistently
would be a chunk, so I would appreciate some feedback on this in advance.
Are these argument-types clear? What others should there be? Is this a
good ide
At 1:46 PM -0700 2001/06/21, Joshua Slive wrote:
One thing that I think confuses many people about the apache docs is
trying to determine what kind of pathname each directive takes. For
example, should a pathname be
1. Absolute
2. Relative to the documentroot
3. Relative to the webspace
3. Relativ
One thing that I think confuses many people about the apache docs is
trying to determine what kind of pathname each directive takes. For
example, should a pathname be
1. Absolute
2. Relative to the documentroot
3. Relative to the webspace
3. Relative to the serverroot
etc...
Some directives are
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Not good. "Well suppose" should be "Well, suppose".
[...]
> Not good. The phrase is "112-bit quadruple" with an enclosed
> parenthetical explanation. The original text is correct.
Woops... I had already committed the whole thing. I guess I
slive 01/06/21 13:22:28
Modified:htdocs/manual/mod mod_unique_id.html
Log:
Back-out a couple typo fixes which weren't really typos.
Submitted by: Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Revision ChangesPath
1.7 +2 -2 httpd-docs-1.3/htdocs/manual/mod/m
Yoshiki Hayashi wrote:
>
> I think this is correct fix but I'm not really comfortable
> with my English. :-) Could someone review this change?
Did not see any reply to this. Some are good, some are not:
> -work. Filename is either and absolute path or relative to +work. Filename is either an
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> At the very least, -X should give a hint that it's
> now -DONE_PROCESS or it should be really well documented somewhere
> (AFAICT, it's not currently documented... may be wrong about that).
It is documented in
http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.0/upgrading.
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> I do not think the STATUS item refers to moving them, but to
> getting their HTML representation into the HTML docco tree.
> Which can be done as an addition w/o requiring any breakage to
> existing stuff. It would not be good to *move* them, b
Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> My opinion is that we should just leave this as-is in 1.3. 1.3 is in
> "maintenance mode" at the moment, so major changes are strongly
> discouraged.
Au contraire. It is in maintenance mode only because everyone's
attention has shifted to 2.0. If there is a commmunity d
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Jason Lingohr wrote:
> Joshua asked me to mail the list with anything missing... from the 1.2
> revision of STATUS:
>
> - man pages
> - The 2.0 documentation tree includes the man pages, but
> for 1.3 they are still only in the src/support directory.
>
My opinion is
Joshua asked me to mail the list with anything missing... from the 1.2
revision of STATUS:
- man pages
- The 2.0 documentation tree includes the man pages, but
for 1.3 they are still only in the src/support directory.
I was going to address this, but have no commit access.
--
---
Apache HTTP Server 2.0 Documentation Status File.
Last modified: $Date: 2001/05/21 20:53:41 $
If you are interested in helping accomplish some of the tasks on this
list or otherwise improving the documentation, please join the
apache-docs mailing list by mailing to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- modules do
Apache HTTP Server 1.3 Documentation Status File.
Last modified: $Date: 2001/06/19 02:59:28 $
If you are interested in helping accomplish some of the tasks on this
list or otherwise improving the documentation, please join the
apache-docs mailing list by sending an empty message to
[EMAIL PROTECT
13 matches
Mail list logo
