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 <jo...@slive.ca> on 2002/03/11 17:20:53 UTC
Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/docs/manual/style modulesynopsis.dtd
On 11 Mar 2002 patrikj@apache.org wrote:
> patrikj 02/03/11 03:31:57
>
> Modified: docs/manual/style modulesynopsis.dtd
> Log:
> Added %inlinetags; to <default> (some docs uses <em> in <default>)
>
Could you reverse that please.
<default> should be the exact thing that would be entered in the
config file to get the default configuration. The ones that say
<default><em>none</em></default> should just be removed
entirely.
I know I really need to document this stuff. Overall your changes look
great, Patrik.
Joshua.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
RE: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/docs/manual/style modulesynopsis.dtd
Posted by Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>.
> From: Rodent of Unusual Size [mailto:Ken.Coar@Golux.Com]
> Unless it really needs to be EMphasised, <i> is a better choice.
Yah, I screwed up a while back when I normalied what is now the <syntax>. I
used <em> for things that are replaced, whereas I probably should have used
<i>. Now, with the xml, they should all be changed to <replaceable> or
something, but that was just too much work for me, so I left them.
Of course, it should be simple enough with xml transformations to substitute
tags, provided the context is clear.
Joshua.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/docs/manual/style modulesynopsis.dtd
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Patrik Grip-Jansson wrote:
>
> The reason I added <em> was that some docs use this tag for defaults that
> are taken from different modules/directives. To allow for such cases, I
> propose that we allow <directive> with in <default>. That would allow
> links to the module where the directive in question is defined, which
> looks nice...
Unless it really needs to be EMphasised, <i> is a better choice.
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
RE: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/docs/manual/style modulesynopsis.dtd
Posted by Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>.
> From: Patrik Grip-Jansson [mailto:patrikj@gnulix.org]
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Rich Bowen wrote:
>
> > Trying to catch up here ... I put a lot of <em> tags in <default> tags,
> > because I was just following examples. Am I correctly understanding that
> > these need to get removed?
>
> Yes, there shouldn't be any tags at all inside <default>, only
> plain text.
I think that certainly the ones with <default><em>none</em></default> can
certainly be just removed. The more complicated ones are up for debate. I
don't see any perfect solutions.
Joshua.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
RE: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/docs/manual/style modulesynopsis.dtd
Posted by Patrik Grip-Jansson <pa...@gnulix.org>.
On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Rich Bowen wrote:
> Trying to catch up here ... I put a lot of <em> tags in <default> tags,
> because I was just following examples. Am I correctly understanding that
> these need to get removed?
Yes, there shouldn't be any tags at all inside <default>, only plain text.
I did a quick grep on the mod directory and there is only one file with
<em>:s left and that is mod_rewrite.xml.
I've been working on that mod_rewrite since yesterday, trying to squeeze
it into a format that the DTD allows, without sacrificing appearance. I
think I've got a pretty good version now. I'll commit it with in a little
while and then there shouldn't be any <em> problems left in the CVS.
--
.---------------------.
| Patrik Grip-Jansson |
| Ringen 4B | .--------------------.
| 78444 Borlänge .--'----' http://gnulix.com/ `---------.
| Sweden | All views and opinions are my own, |
`------------------| PH:+46(0)24382823 PW:+46(0)707354360 |
`--------------------------------------'
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
RE: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/docs/manual/style modulesynopsis.dtd
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Joshua Slive wrote:
> I understand why you want this, but I'm not sure if it is a good idea.
> Won't it look awfully confusing to have a "directive in a directive". I'd
> like to keep the <default> simple and consistent so that the data can easily
> be reused.
>
> At the moment, I'm leaning towards saying that we should only allow a simple
> <default>, and that anything more complicated we just leave to be explained
> in <usage>. Anyone have other opinions/suggestions.
Trying to catch up here ... I put a lot of <em> tags in <default> tags,
because I was just following examples. Am I correctly understanding that
these need to get removed?
--
Who can say where the road goes
Where the day flows
Only time
--Pilgrim (Enya - A Day Without Rain)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
RE: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/docs/manual/style modulesynopsis.dtd
Posted by Patrik Grip-Jansson <pa...@gnulix.org>.
On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Joshua Slive wrote:
> I let this thread peter-out because I don't really have a good answer. I
> certainly don't want to be obstructionist, so please go ahead with what you
> think is best. Just try to keep it as simple as possible.
In the spirit of simplicity I went with "See usage". Since it was only two
(maybe three) places, there shouldn't be too much work if someone comes up
with a better solution :-)
--
.---------------------.
| Patrik Grip-Jansson |
| Ringen 4B | .--------------------.
| 78444 Borlänge .--'----' http://gnulix.com/ `---------.
| Sweden | All views and opinions are my own, |
`------------------| PH:+46(0)24382823 PW:+46(0)707354360 |
`--------------------------------------'
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
RE: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/docs/manual/style modulesynopsis.dtd
Posted by Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>.
> From: Patrik Grip-Jansson [mailto:patrikj@gnulix.org]
> It's probably just as confusing to have <default>'s that aren't really
> defaults.
> Since there are only a couple of documents that use this, how about
> using; <default>See description</default>? Or something to that effect.
I let this thread peter-out because I don't really have a good answer. I
certainly don't want to be obstructionist, so please go ahead with what you
think is best. Just try to keep it as simple as possible.
Joshua.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
RE: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/docs/manual/style modulesynopsis.dtd
Posted by Patrik Grip-Jansson <pa...@gnulix.org>.
On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Joshua Slive wrote:
> I understand why you want this, but I'm not sure if it is a good idea.
> Won't it look awfully confusing to have a "directive in a directive". I'd
> like to keep the <default> simple and consistent so that the data can easily
> be reused.
It's probably just as confusing to have <default>'s that aren't really
defaults.
> At the moment, I'm leaning towards saying that we should only allow a simple
> <default>, and that anything more complicated we just leave to be explained
> in <usage>. Anyone have other opinions/suggestions.
Since there are only a couple of documents that use this, how about
using; <default>See description</default>? Or something to that effect.
--
.---------------------.
| Patrik Grip-Jansson |
| Ringen 4B | .--------------------.
| 78444 Borlänge .--'----' http://gnulix.com/ `---------.
| Sweden | All views and opinions are my own, |
`------------------| PH:+46(0)24382823 PW:+46(0)707354360 |
`--------------------------------------'
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
RE: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/docs/manual/style modulesynopsis.dtd
Posted by Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>.
> From: Patrik Grip-Jansson [mailto:patrikj@gnulix.org]
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> > > Added %inlinetags; to <default> (some docs uses <em> in <default>)
> > Could you reverse that please.
>
> Sure!
>
> The reason I added <em> was that some docs use this tag for defaults that
> are taken from different modules/directives. To allow for such cases, I
> propose that we allow <directive> with in <default>. That would allow
> links to the module where the directive in question is defined, which
> looks nice...
I understand why you want this, but I'm not sure if it is a good idea.
Won't it look awfully confusing to have a "directive in a directive". I'd
like to keep the <default> simple and consistent so that the data can easily
be reused.
At the moment, I'm leaning towards saying that we should only allow a simple
<default>, and that anything more complicated we just leave to be explained
in <usage>. Anyone have other opinions/suggestions.
Some examples of stuff I would rather not see:
ErrorLog logs/error_log (Unix) ErrorLog logs/error.log (Windows and OS/2)
RLimitNPROC Unset; uses operating system defaults
ProxyTimout <em>same as Timeout</em>
etc...
In the same veign, I've tride to eliminate all the complicated/multi-line
<syntax> entries. If a syntax is too complicated to be explained in one
short line, then we need to explain it in <usage>.
Joshua.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/docs/manual/style modulesynopsis.dtd
Posted by Patrik Grip-Jansson <pa...@gnulix.org>.
On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Joshua Slive wrote:
> > Added %inlinetags; to <default> (some docs uses <em> in <default>)
> Could you reverse that please.
Sure!
The reason I added <em> was that some docs use this tag for defaults that
are taken from different modules/directives. To allow for such cases, I
propose that we allow <directive> with in <default>. That would allow
links to the module where the directive in question is defined, which
looks nice...
--
.---------------------.
| Patrik Grip-Jansson |
| Ringen 4B | .--------------------.
| 78444 Borlänge .--'----' http://gnulix.com/ `---------.
| Sweden | All views and opinions are my own, |
`------------------| PH:+46(0)24382823 PW:+46(0)707354360 |
`--------------------------------------'
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org