You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to docs@httpd.apache.org by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com> on 2000/07/26 00:06:07 UTC
Documentation project is open for business..
Greetings!
First off, I would like to propose changing this list to be like
all the other Apache mailing lists by attaching a 'reply-to'
field to the headers. That way, when someone replies to a message
sent to the list, the reply will go to the list as well. I'll
do this in a couple of days if no-one has any objection.
Next:
As you probably could tell from the recent spate of commit messages,
the Apache HTTP Server documentation project is open for business.
The documentation has been split off from the source code tree
so people can work on it without having to have access to the
code. (People doing translations, or cleaning up the prose,
for instance.)
A number of people expressed interest in working on the
documentation, either because that's where their skills
lay, or they had an itch they wanted to scratch, or they wanted
to contribute to the Apache project and didn't feel comfortable
working on the code.
Well, here's your opportunity. :-)
You can get the documentation source files from the Sourcery.Org
site (among others). Use cvs:
cvs -d :pserver:anoncvs@CVS.Sourcery.Org:/cvs/apache login
(password is "anoncvs")
cvs -d :pserver:anoncvs@CVS.Sourcery.Org:/cvs/apache co httpd-docs-1.3
(or httpd-docs-2.0 if you want to work with the 2.0 documentation)
Go ahead and make changes to your copies, and then propose them
by generating a diff and sending it to this mailing list
(apache-docs@apache.org) with a subject beginning with "[PATCH]".
For instance, "[PATCH] Spelling correction for index.html.po".
Generate the patch with
cvs diff -u index.html.po
(or whatever the changed file is), and send the resulting output.
Commit access to the documentation will be handed out fairly
readily, once people have shown they know what they're up to.
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar <http://Golux.Com/coar/>
Apache Software Foundation <http://www.apache.org/>
"Apache Server for Dummies" <http://Apache-Server.Com/>
"Apache Server Unleashed" <http://ApacheUnleashed.Com/>
Re: Update of FAQ entry on mime type detection in browsers
Posted by Rob Stewart <ro...@hdlc.com>.
Plaese put me off your mailing list.
----- Original Message -----
From: Joshua Slive <sl...@finance.commerce.ubc.ca>
To: <ap...@apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: Update of FAQ entry on mime type detection in browsers
> Sure. The way I had it written initially was wrong, however, because I
> was saying that IE's behaviour was wrong BOTH in the text/plain and
> application/octet-stream case. I now believe (correct me if I am wrong)
> that IE is correct to try to guess content type in the
> application/octet-stream case. However, you are right that doing so for
> text/plain is plain wrong. I started to write up the FAQ entry explaining
> the difference between the two cases, then I figured I would just be
> confusing people, so I shortened it down to what I submitted.
>
> I've attached a new patch which makes it a little more clear that IE is
> incorrect in its behavior towards text/plain.
>
> --
> Joshua Slive
> slive@finance.commerce.ubc.ca
> http://finance.commerce.ubc.ca/~slive/
> Phone: (604) 822-1871
>
> On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Marc Slemko wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Joshua Slive wrote:
> >
> > > These changes just provide slightly more accurate information about
> > > browser mime type detection. (I was being a little too negative
> > > towards Microsoft when I originally wrote this.) The same diff should
> > > work against the 2.0 tree.
> >
> > I think this should still be explicit about the fact that IE's behaviour
> > is broken and violates the specs.
> >
> >
>
Re: Update of FAQ entry on mime type detection in browsers
Posted by Joshua Slive <sl...@finance.commerce.ubc.ca>.
Sure. The way I had it written initially was wrong, however, because I
was saying that IE's behaviour was wrong BOTH in the text/plain and
application/octet-stream case. I now believe (correct me if I am wrong)
that IE is correct to try to guess content type in the
application/octet-stream case. However, you are right that doing so for
text/plain is plain wrong. I started to write up the FAQ entry explaining
the difference between the two cases, then I figured I would just be
confusing people, so I shortened it down to what I submitted.
I've attached a new patch which makes it a little more clear that IE is
incorrect in its behavior towards text/plain.
--
Joshua Slive
slive@finance.commerce.ubc.ca
http://finance.commerce.ubc.ca/~slive/
Phone: (604) 822-1871
On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Marc Slemko wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> > These changes just provide slightly more accurate information about
> > browser mime type detection. (I was being a little too negative
> > towards Microsoft when I originally wrote this.) The same diff should
> > work against the 2.0 tree.
>
> I think this should still be explicit about the fact that IE's behaviour
> is broken and violates the specs.
>
>
Re: Update of FAQ entry on mime type detection in browsers
Posted by Marc Slemko <ma...@znep.com>.
On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Joshua Slive wrote:
> These changes just provide slightly more accurate information about
> browser mime type detection. (I was being a little too negative
> towards Microsoft when I originally wrote this.) The same diff should
> work against the 2.0 tree.
I think this should still be explicit about the fact that IE's behaviour
is broken and violates the specs.
[PATCH] install.html
Posted by Joshua Slive <sl...@finance.commerce.ubc.ca>.
It seems strange that the installation docs for apache don't even mention
the method that most people use to install apache. (I know, it was a
political issue). This provides a reference.
--
Joshua Slive
slive@finance.commerce.ubc.ca
http://finance.commerce.ubc.ca/~slive/
Phone: (604) 822-1871
Update of FAQ entry on mime type detection in browsers
Posted by Joshua Slive <sl...@finance.commerce.ubc.ca>.
These changes just provide slightly more accurate information about
browser mime type detection. (I was being a little too negative
towards Microsoft when I originally wrote this.) The same diff should
work against the 2.0 tree.
--
Joshua Slive
slive@finance.commerce.ubc.ca
http://finance.commerce.ubc.ca/~slive/
Phone: (604) 822-1871