: Re: Docs format (again)
Author: gerardrv ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) at unix,mime
Date:01/08/01 17:17
> I understand the current HTML format pretty well; XHTML
> sounds like a fairly simple transition, but XML would be foreign, so
> not worth switching unless we get exactly what we want. Als
> I understand the current HTML format pretty well; XHTML
> sounds like a fairly simple transition, but XML would be foreign, so
> not worth switching unless we get exactly what we want. Also, I'm not
> aware of Mac (non-emacs) tools for XML -- doesn't mean they don't
> exist, but there are cer
At 8:33 PM -0400 2001/07/26, Joshua Slive wrote:
So, I've been thinking and investigating the whole XML issue a little
more, and I still don't know what is the best way for httpd-docs to go.
If we choose not to customize docbook, then we will wind up using
presentation-style markup for the module
On Sun, Jul 29, 2001 at 10:31:39PM -0400, Rich Bowen wrote:
> > Anyone have any suggestions or comments?
>
> I tried really hard to like DocBook, but I just couldn't do it. It is
> so noisy. That block abouve is almost half markup. I find it so
> cumbersome to write.
>
> I've waffled between LaT
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> mod_env
> This module provides for modifying the environment which
> is passed to CGI scripts and SSI pages.
> Base
> [...]
>
>
> This module allows for control of the environment that will be
> provided to CGI scripts and
So, I've been thinking and investigating the whole XML issue a little
more, and I still don't know what is the best way for httpd-docs to go.
The obvious choice is docbook, which seems to be the standard for
open-source documentation, and has at least a moderate toolset behind it.
This would also
