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 2000/10/21 01:36:34 UTC
Re: Main index.html (http://www.quantumfx.com/apachedocs/)
On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, Carlos Ramirez wrote:
> I posted an updated version that shows how new sections can be added. I
> added "Configuration Topics" and "Another Topic Goes Here" sections. It
> still provides a clean layout...
>
I like it.
I think that some people are going to consider it a little too flashy.
People with that opinion should speak up soon.
Here's a couple questions/suggestions:
- Can you do it without restricting the table width to 600dpi (or whatever
it is). I know, you will probably wind up with uneven column widths, but
I think I prefer that to hard-coded 600dpi.
- I think some people would have a heart attack if we committed something
with all those <font> tags. Perhaps a small style-sheet in the <head>
could be used. We probably shouldn't be changing the fonts at all
if we are going to be using the browser-default fonts on all the other
doc pages.
Joshua.
Re: Main index.html (http://www.quantumfx.com/apachedocs/)
Posted by Carlos Ramirez <cr...@gte.net>.
Thanks! I guess we'll wait-n-see ;)
-Carlos
Julia Pond wrote:
>
> Well, that's a good, reasoned response...especially that it solves some if
> not all organizational problems (which is really all anyone can hope for).
> And, sure, it's good to wait and see.
>
> As to "look and feel"...well, in that arena there's such a thing as "the
> devil you know"--not to denigrate anyone's previous work, but just to say
> that though it is a major change, its design will facilitate adaptation
> without difficulty.
>
> Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 23 Oct 2000, Julia Pond wrote:
> >
> > > You did a good job on this.
> > >
> >
> > I agree. I think it is nice. It doesn't solve all the organizational
> > problems we have with the docs, but it is better than what we have. It
> > would, of course, need significant tweaking in terms of what links are
> > where, etc. But, that could be done.
> >
> > However, I am not going to commit this at the moment. Since this is a
> > major change in the "look and feel" of the docs, I think we want to see a
> > consensus about it. So far we have three positive votes (including mine
> > and the submitters), but I think we should wait a little, and see if any
> > ASF people or others want to comment.
> >
> > Joshua.
--
RTFM: Not just an acronym, it's the LAW!
Re: Main index.html (http://www.quantumfx.com/apachedocs/)
Posted by Julia Pond <ju...@oracle.com>.
Well, that's a good, reasoned response...especially that it solves some if
not all organizational problems (which is really all anyone can hope for).
And, sure, it's good to wait and see.
As to "look and feel"...well, in that arena there's such a thing as "the
devil you know"--not to denigrate anyone's previous work, but just to say
that though it is a major change, its design will facilitate adaptation
without difficulty.
Joshua Slive wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2000, Julia Pond wrote:
>
> > You did a good job on this.
> >
>
> I agree. I think it is nice. It doesn't solve all the organizational
> problems we have with the docs, but it is better than what we have. It
> would, of course, need significant tweaking in terms of what links are
> where, etc. But, that could be done.
>
> However, I am not going to commit this at the moment. Since this is a
> major change in the "look and feel" of the docs, I think we want to see a
> consensus about it. So far we have three positive votes (including mine
> and the submitters), but I think we should wait a little, and see if any
> ASF people or others want to comment.
>
> Joshua.
Re: Main index.html (http://www.quantumfx.com/apachedocs/)
Posted by Joshua Slive <sl...@finance.commerce.ubc.ca>.
On Mon, 23 Oct 2000, Julia Pond wrote:
> You did a good job on this.
>
I agree. I think it is nice. It doesn't solve all the organizational
problems we have with the docs, but it is better than what we have. It
would, of course, need significant tweaking in terms of what links are
where, etc. But, that could be done.
However, I am not going to commit this at the moment. Since this is a
major change in the "look and feel" of the docs, I think we want to see a
consensus about it. So far we have three positive votes (including mine
and the submitters), but I think we should wait a little, and see if any
ASF people or others want to comment.
Joshua.
Re: Main index.html (http://www.quantumfx.com/apachedocs/)
Posted by Julia Pond <ju...@oracle.com>.
You did a good job on this.
Carlos Ramirez wrote:
> Thanks for your comments. I updated the webpage so that no font tags are
> used and replaced them with <small> tags. I also validated it against
> w3c.org's HTML validator resulting in no errors found (as of this
> version). However, I hope to make a good case for keeping the width
> requirement of 600 pixels. One obvious reason is that is guarantees a
> consistent look for the main manual page. Furthermore, it maintains a
> clean readable layout of the sections and it contents. Using this width
> satisfies the lowest resolution of 800X600, higher resolutions (i think)
> get a better display. My monitor resoultion is set to 1152X864 and it's
> still very readable.
>
> The main goal i would like to achieve is to provide a well organized and
> pleasent looking main manual page, where it's easy to find stuff,
> without having to scrool too much (at least fr the intro page). And of
> course using bare bones HTML tags with a mix of HTML techniques to
> maintain a good layout.
>
> http://www.quantumfx.com/apachedocs/
>
> -Carlos
>
> Joshua Slive wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, Carlos Ramirez wrote:
> >
> > > I posted an updated version that shows how new sections can be added. I
> > > added "Configuration Topics" and "Another Topic Goes Here" sections. It
> > > still provides a clean layout...
> > >
> >
> > I like it.
> >
> > I think that some people are going to consider it a little too flashy.
> > People with that opinion should speak up soon.
> >
> > Here's a couple questions/suggestions:
> > - Can you do it without restricting the table width to 600dpi (or whatever
> > it is). I know, you will probably wind up with uneven column widths, but
> > I think I prefer that to hard-coded 600dpi.
> > - I think some people would have a heart attack if we committed something
> > with all those <font> tags. Perhaps a small style-sheet in the <head>
> > could be used. We probably shouldn't be changing the fonts at all
> > if we are going to be using the browser-default fonts on all the other
> > doc pages.
> >
> > Joshua.
>
> --
> RTFM: Not just an acronym, it's the LAW!
Re: Main index.html (http://www.quantumfx.com/apachedocs/)
Posted by Carlos Ramirez <cr...@gte.net>.
Thanks for your comments. I updated the webpage so that no font tags are
used and replaced them with <small> tags. I also validated it against
w3c.org's HTML validator resulting in no errors found (as of this
version). However, I hope to make a good case for keeping the width
requirement of 600 pixels. One obvious reason is that is guarantees a
consistent look for the main manual page. Furthermore, it maintains a
clean readable layout of the sections and it contents. Using this width
satisfies the lowest resolution of 800X600, higher resolutions (i think)
get a better display. My monitor resoultion is set to 1152X864 and it's
still very readable.
The main goal i would like to achieve is to provide a well organized and
pleasent looking main manual page, where it's easy to find stuff,
without having to scrool too much (at least fr the intro page). And of
course using bare bones HTML tags with a mix of HTML techniques to
maintain a good layout.
http://www.quantumfx.com/apachedocs/
-Carlos
Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, Carlos Ramirez wrote:
>
> > I posted an updated version that shows how new sections can be added. I
> > added "Configuration Topics" and "Another Topic Goes Here" sections. It
> > still provides a clean layout...
> >
>
> I like it.
>
> I think that some people are going to consider it a little too flashy.
> People with that opinion should speak up soon.
>
> Here's a couple questions/suggestions:
> - Can you do it without restricting the table width to 600dpi (or whatever
> it is). I know, you will probably wind up with uneven column widths, but
> I think I prefer that to hard-coded 600dpi.
> - I think some people would have a heart attack if we committed something
> with all those <font> tags. Perhaps a small style-sheet in the <head>
> could be used. We probably shouldn't be changing the fonts at all
> if we are going to be using the browser-default fonts on all the other
> doc pages.
>
> Joshua.
--
RTFM: Not just an acronym, it's the LAW!