You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to docs@httpd.apache.org by Joshua Slive <sl...@finance.commerce.ubc.ca> on 2000/11/01 19:14:59 UTC
main page
You will probably notice I comitted my latest version of the main doc
page.
This is NOT intended to close debate on the subject. I just decided that
it was time to move the debate to a new starting point. Not having the
new page was holding up some other stuff. Suggestions/patches/whatever are
still very welcome.
Some of the outstanding issues from my perspective:
- Two or three columns? On my high-res monitors, the two column display
is nicer, but I can see how it could involve lots of scrolling on
lower-res displays. We can't please everyone, but what is the best
compromise?
- Should we change the headers of the other pages to match this page (with
the quick links at the top)> The problem with doing this is, as noted
before, it will involve including HTML 4.0 in docs marked as HTML3.2. I
can change the header very easily because it is an SSI, but the <doctype>
is hardcoded into each file, so it is not easy to change.
- I think we still need a "site map" which lists in a simple (tree?)
format every page in the documentation. Does anyone want to take a crack
at this?
--
Joshua Slive
slive@finance.commerce.ubc.ca
http://finance.commerce.ubc.ca/~slive/
Phone: (604) 822-1871
Re: main page
Posted by Chris Pepper <pe...@mail.reppep.com>.
At 12:40 PM -0800 2000/11/01, Joshua Slive wrote:
>On Wed, 1 Nov 2000, Chris Pepper wrote:
>
>> At 10:14 AM -0800 2000/11/01, Joshua Slive wrote:
>> >- Should we change the headers of the other pages to match this page (with
>>
>> How hard is it? Is there a logical juncture to change the
>> whole thing? Is there a reason to keep the DOCTYPE out of an SSI
>> include?
>>
>
>The doctype can't go in the SSI, becuase the <title> for each document
>needs to be different, os you would need one SSI above the title and
>one below.
Would be nice if SSI could to take a 'variable' for the
<title>. Lots of people could then have the whole head as one SSI,
alleviating problems like this.
>I could just do a few lines of perl and replace all the doctypes. If
>people think that is the right way to go, then I will consider it. I'm
>just not so happy about having to commit a change to every single file in
>the repository. (It is not that much work, but it just seems a little
>scary to me.)
Is there a natural inflection point when this becomes more
appropriate -- with 1.4, or 2.0, or when many files will be have to
be touched anyway?
Chris
--
Chris Pepper | Shooting Gallery Interactive | 212 905-2200
Mac OS X Software: <http://www.mosxsw.com/>
Re: main page
Posted by Joshua Slive <sl...@finance.commerce.ubc.ca>.
On Wed, 1 Nov 2000, Chris Pepper wrote:
> At 10:14 AM -0800 2000/11/01, Joshua Slive wrote:
> >- Should we change the headers of the other pages to match this page (with
>
> How hard is it? Is there a logical juncture to change the
> whole thing? Is there a reason to keep the DOCTYPE out of an SSI
> include?
>
The doctype can't go in the SSI, becuase the <title> for each document
needs to be different, os you would need one SSI above the title and
one below.
I could just do a few lines of perl and replace all the doctypes. If
people think that is the right way to go, then I will consider it. I'm
just not so happy about having to commit a change to every single file in
the repository. (It is not that much work, but it just seems a little
scary to me.)
Re: main page
Posted by Chris Pepper <pe...@mail.reppep.com>.
At 10:14 AM -0800 2000/11/01, Joshua Slive wrote:
>You will probably notice I comitted my latest version of the main doc
>page.
>- Should we change the headers of the other pages to match this page (with
>the quick links at the top)> The problem with doing this is, as noted
>before, it will involve including HTML 4.0 in docs marked as HTML3.2. I
>can change the header very easily because it is an SSI, but the <doctype>
>is hardcoded into each file, so it is not easy to change.
How hard is it? Is there a logical juncture to change the
whole thing? Is there a reason to keep the DOCTYPE out of an SSI
include?
Chris
--
Chris Pepper | Shooting Gallery Interactive | 212 905-2200
Mac OS X Software: <http://www.mosxsw.com/>
Re: main page
Posted by Tony Finch <do...@dotat.at>.
Joshua Slive <sl...@finance.commerce.ubc.ca> wrote:
>
>- Two or three columns? On my high-res monitors, the two column display
>is nicer, but I can see how it could involve lots of scrolling on
>lower-res displays. We can't please everyone, but what is the best
>compromise?
I think two columns is fine. My browser is usually about 640 pixels
wide, and it works fine there. I would have expected three columns to
be worse for small screens, not better.
>- Should we change the headers of the other pages to match this page (with
>the quick links at the top)> The problem with doing this is, as noted
>before, it will involve including HTML 4.0 in docs marked as HTML3.2. I
>can change the header very easily because it is an SSI, but the <doctype>
>is hardcoded into each file, so it is not easy to change.
Hmm. I would have suggested adding the doctype to the standard header
but the document title gets in the way. Perhaps we should add another
include file for the doctype? Oh, and why isn't the <body> colour
scheme in the header? (I guess it makes the HTML nesting a bit dubious.)
Tony.
--
en oeccget g mtcaa f.a.n.finch
v spdlkishrhtewe y dot@dotat.at
eatp o v eiti i d. fanf@covalent.net