On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, you wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> > 2. We wait about two days to make sure eveyone has a chance to
> > read this thread and voice their opinion on conversion to XHTML.
>
> OK, here is a lurker's opinion :-)
>
> Have you considered the problems that ma
On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Patrik Grip-Jansson wrote:
> OK, here is a lurker's opinion :-)
Always welcome!
>
> Have you considered the problems that may occur with older browsers that
> doesn't support XHTML? Some old browsers doesn't handle tags without
> closing tags, such as or , very gracefully.
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Joshua Slive wrote:
> 2. We wait about two days to make sure eveyone has a chance to
> read this thread and voice their opinion on conversion to XHTML.
OK, here is a lurker's opinion :-)
Have you considered the problems that may occur with older browsers that
doesn't support
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, you wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, James A Sutherland wrote:
> > OK. Since I made a start on this a while ago, I'll volunteer to make a
> > start -
> > I don't have commit access, though, so who wants to handle the patches? Or
> > can
> > I get commit access on docs? Just lowe
> Okay, here is a suggested course of action:
>
> 1. I will give a "heads-up" to the new-httpd list later today
> on the XHTML issue to make sure nobody there objects.
>
> 2. We wait about two days to make sure eveyone has a chance to
> read this thread and voice their opinion on conversion to XH
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, James A Sutherland wrote:
> OK. Since I made a start on this a while ago, I'll volunteer to make a start -
> I don't have commit access, though, so who wants to handle the patches? Or can
> I get commit access on docs? Just lowercasing the tags will generate a huge
> flood of
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, you wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, James A Sutherland wrote:
> > Personally, I'd rather go for XHTML1, unless there are any pressing reasons
> > not
> > to; apart from lower-casing the tags, the changes needed are fairly
> > trivial. I
> > looked at this briefly a few months a
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, you wrote:
> > > Are you proposing that all the documentation be moved to XHTML, or just
> > > these header files? The former is a sizeable undertaking from two
> > > fronts. One, we're talking about a lot of docs to convert. Two, we're
> > > talking about educating every contr
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, James A Sutherland wrote:
> Personally, I'd rather go for XHTML1, unless there are any pressing reasons
> not
> to; apart from lower-casing the tags, the changes needed are fairly trivial. I
> looked at this briefly a few months ago, and apart from the changes in single
> tags
> > Are you proposing that all the documentation be moved to XHTML, or just
> > these header files? The former is a sizeable undertaking from two
> > fronts. One, we're talking about a lot of docs to convert. Two, we're
> > talking about educating every contributer to submit stuff in XHTML, when
>
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, you wrote:
> James A Sutherland wrote:
> >
> > You were premature, because you invoked a veto on an idea you
> > hadn't even looked at. You saw the word "rename", and leapt to
> > completely the wrong conclusion.
>
> I'm beginning to resent your putting words in my 'mouth.'
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, you wrote:
> James A Sutherland wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, you wrote:
> > > James A Sutherland wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Except the current contents of header.html aren't the header we
> > > > want, or structured in the way needed. Changing the contents of
> > > > header
James A Sutherland wrote:
>
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, you wrote:
> > James A Sutherland wrote:
> > >
> > > Except the current contents of header.html aren't the header we
> > > want, or structured in the way needed. Changing the contents of
> > > header.html would break every page in docs ATM; puttin
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, you wrote:
> James A Sutherland wrote:
> >
> > Except the current contents of header.html aren't the header we
> > want, or structured in the way needed. Changing the contents of
> > header.html would break every page in docs ATM; putting the new
> > header in a new file allow
James A Sutherland wrote:
>
> Except the current contents of header.html aren't the header we
> want, or structured in the way needed. Changing the contents of
> header.html would break every page in docs ATM; putting the new
> header in a new file allows for a gradual changeover.
By the way, I'm
James A Sutherland wrote:
>
> You were premature, because you invoked a veto on an idea you
> hadn't even looked at. You saw the word "rename", and leapt to
> completely the wrong conclusion.
I'm beginning to resent your putting words in my 'mouth.' :-(
I did nothing of the sort.
> > *Now* the
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, you wrote:
> James A Sutherland wrote:
> >
> > Whatever your reasoning, a veto was premature. You vetoed an idea
> > you thought might be under discussion, before asking what was
> > being proposed.
>
> Wrong. You apparently don't understand how the veto process works.
> I w
James A Sutherland wrote:
>
> Whatever your reasoning, a veto was premature. You vetoed an idea
> you thought might be under discussion, before asking what was
> being proposed.
Wrong. You apparently don't understand how the veto process works.
I was mistaken, but not premature.
> > > much for
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, you wrote:
> James A Sutherland wrote:
> >
> > > That's not a vote, it's a veto.
> >
> > Which is even worse: you don't even appear to have considered
> > the issue, yet you are leaping to a conclusion prematurely.
>
> Not so. Regardless of what you may think, I *did* consi
At 4:16 PM -0500 2000/11/28, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
James A Sutherland wrote:
Chris wrote:
Don't know, but if we do the switch by hand, I'd like to use
.shtml or something instead of the .html to make headers & footers
easier to distinguish. This may also make it easier to do the
James A Sutherland wrote:
>
> > That's not a vote, it's a veto.
>
> Which is even worse: you don't even appear to have considered
> the issue, yet you are leaping to a conclusion prematurely.
Not so. Regardless of what you may think, I *did* consider the
issue, and jumped to no premature conclu
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, you wrote:
> James A Sutherland wrote:
> >
> > > Putting a burden on the process of packaging the software for
> > > distribution, solely so some files can be renamed. For this
> > > reason and the effect on the repository, -1.
> >
> > I never suggested a vote on the issue;
James A Sutherland wrote:
>
> > Putting a burden on the process of packaging the software for
> > distribution, solely so some files can be renamed. For this
> > reason and the effect on the repository, -1.
>
> I never suggested a vote on the issue;
That's not a vote, it's a veto.
> you actual
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, you wrote:
> James A Sutherland wrote:
> >
> > If this is a requirement, taking a "snapshot" of the pages would do,
> > then include the source in a tarball. Perhaps better to include a
> > link to a proper installation of the docs, though.
>
> Putting a burden on the process
James A Sutherland wrote:
>
> If this is a requirement, taking a "snapshot" of the pages would do,
> then include the source in a tarball. Perhaps better to include a
> link to a proper installation of the docs, though.
Putting a burden on the process of packaging the software for
distribution, s
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, you wrote:
> James A Sutherland wrote:
> >
> > Is there any reason for shipping like this, though?
>
> Yes. Because the core module can process them, and no additional
> modules need be loaded.
If this is a requirement, taking a "snapshot" of the pages would do, then
includ
James A Sutherland wrote:
>
> Is there any reason for shipping like this, though?
Yes. Because the core module can process them, and no additional
modules need be loaded.
> IMO, enabling them by default would be perfectly reasonable.
No. Lots of people DO NOT want SSIs enabled, and certainly
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Chris Pepper wrote:
> At 9:37 AM + 2000/11/28, James A Sutherland wrote:
> >On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, you wrote:
> > > On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Chris Pepper wrote:
>
> >Does it need to be done by hand? If you parse the file to pull out the title
> >value, and the header.shtml end
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, you wrote:
> Chris Pepper wrote:
> >
> > Don't know, but if we do the switch by hand, I'd like to use
> > .shtml or something instead of the .html to make headers & footers
> > easier to distinguish.
>
> Not a good idea; the documentation is packaged as part of the
>
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, you wrote:
> At 9:37 AM + 2000/11/28, James A Sutherland wrote:
> >On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, you wrote:
> > > On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Chris Pepper wrote:
>
> >Does it need to be done by hand? If you parse the file to pull out the title
> >value, and the header.shtml ends with the
Chris Pepper wrote:
>
> Don't know, but if we do the switch by hand, I'd like to use
> .shtml or something instead of the .html to make headers & footers
> easier to distinguish.
Not a good idea; the documentation is packaged as part of the
Apache distribution, with the SSIs statically 'c
At 9:37 AM + 2000/11/28, James A Sutherland wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, you wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Chris Pepper wrote:
Does it need to be done by hand? If you parse the file to pull out the title
value, and the header.shtml ends with the opening , that shouldn't be too
hard?
Don't kno
Joshua Slive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Does anyone object to a massive search & replace of all the doctypes
> in httpd-docs-2.0 to put everything up to HTML4.0-Transitional?
> This would be the precurser to modifying the header.html and footer.html
> files to include the fancier header with ho
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, you wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Chris Pepper wrote:
>
> > At 4:32 PM -0800 2000/11/27, Joshua Slive wrote:
> > >Does anyone object to a massive search & replace of all the doctypes
> > >in httpd-docs-2.0 to put everything up to HTML4.0-Transitional?
> > >This would be the pr
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Chris Pepper wrote:
> At 4:32 PM -0800 2000/11/27, Joshua Slive wrote:
> >Does anyone object to a massive search & replace of all the doctypes
> >in httpd-docs-2.0 to put everything up to HTML4.0-Transitional?
> >This would be the precurser to modifying the header.html and foot
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Chris Pepper wrote:
> At 4:32 PM -0800 2000/11/27, Joshua Slive wrote:
> >Does anyone object to a massive search & replace of all the doctypes
> >in httpd-docs-2.0 to put everything up to HTML4.0-Transitional?
> >This would be the precurser to modifying the header.html and foo
At 4:32 PM -0800 2000/11/27, Joshua Slive wrote:
Does anyone object to a massive search & replace of all the doctypes
in httpd-docs-2.0 to put everything up to HTML4.0-Transitional?
This would be the precurser to modifying the header.html and footer.html
files to include the fancier header with hot
Does anyone object to a massive search & replace of all the doctypes
in httpd-docs-2.0 to put everything up to HTML4.0-Transitional?
This would be the precurser to modifying the header.html and footer.html
files to include the fancier header with hotlinks now used on the main doc
page.
--
Joshua
38 matches
Mail list logo
