Michael.Schroepl | 1 Jul 13:23 2002

Antwort: Re: Antwort: Vhosts docs


Hi Rich,

> I've read your note a few times, and I think I may still be
> missing what you're getting at here. I'm not clear what you
> are recommending actually go into this part of the docs to
> address your "first experience" with vhosts.
> It is specifically folks' first experience with vhosts that
> we want to make better. However, most of what you seem to be
> talking about is running Apache without any vhosts at all.
> What am I missing? How does this have anything to do with
> the doc that we are working on here?

I believe that people don't use features because they
are there, but because they need them.

People don't need Virtual Hosts - they need "several
web servers on one machine".
Or at least they believe they need this, unless they
are told that Virtual Hosts will supply exactly this
feature.

IMHO there is no need mentioning IP addresses or port
numbers this early.
There may be a lot of other things one can do with
Virtual Hosts, but the most important thing in my eyes
is that you can access different DNS names on one
machine via HTTP. You will need IP address knowledge
to really make it work (because one has to map the
DNS name to some IP adress), but not yet for under-
(Continue reading)

Rich Bowen | 2 Jul 14:25 2002

Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort: Vhosts docs

On Mon, 1 Jul 2002 Michael.Schroepl <at> telekurs.com wrote:

>
> Hi Rich,
>
> I believe that people don't use features because they
> are there, but because they need them.

The features are there because people need them. This seems like a
rather strange distinction to make, but I *think* I follow what you are
saying.

> People don't need Virtual Hosts - they need "several
> web servers on one machine".

There is a real value to technical terms. The correctly-used technical
term saves pages of explanation, and there is a distinct value in
teaching people to use the right words for the right concepts.

> Or at least they believe they need this, unless they
> are told that Virtual Hosts will supply exactly this
> feature.
>
> IMHO there is no need mentioning IP addresses or port
> numbers this early.

How about if I make the IP address phrase parenthetical? I am very
averse to "dumbing down" the docs. Yes, they should be accessible to the
beginner, but not to the point where they become useless to the advanced
user.
(Continue reading)

Michael.Schroepl | 2 Jul 22:43 2002

Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort: Vhosts docs


Hi Rich,

>> IMHO there is no need mentioning IP addresses or port
>> numbers this early.
> How about if I make the IP address phrase parenthetical?

Fine.

I myself am using parentheses frequently to express
something like a "melody" or "less emphasis" and the
like. HTML _does_ provide things like these, and I
just think this would be a place to make use of it.

> I am very averse to "dumbing down" the docs.

Full ACK.

> Yes, they should be accessible to the beginner, but not
> to the point where they become useless to the advanced user.

I would not suggest to totally leaving out mentioning
IP adresses.
My point was just about whether it must be at the very
start of the first line of the paragraph, instead of
maybe the fourth or so, as I think this is not what
the (scanning) reader has in mind at this moment.
But it is not that much of a difference.

> Hmm. I'm not really sure if I agree. Primarily because
(Continue reading)

rbowen | 3 Jul 04:00 2002
Picon

cvs commit: httpd-docs-1.3/htdocs/manual/mod core.html.en

rbowen      2002/07/02 19:00:12

  Modified:    htdocs/manual/mod core.html.en
  Log:
  Submitted by: Owen Boyle et al
  Attempt to remove some of the confusion about what the "canonical name"
  actually is. From discussion on users <at> 

  Revision  Changes    Path
  1.226     +20 -11    httpd-docs-1.3/htdocs/manual/mod/core.html.en

  Index: core.html.en
  ===================================================================
  RCS file: /home/cvs/httpd-docs-1.3/htdocs/manual/mod/core.html.en,v
  retrieving revision 1.225
  retrieving revision 1.226
  diff -u -r1.225 -r1.226
  --- core.html.en	26 Jun 2002 19:01:39 -0000	1.225
  +++ core.html.en	3 Jul 2002 02:00:11 -0000	1.226
   <at>  <at>  -3684,20 +3684,27  <at>  <at> 
       to the same server. With <code>UseCanonicalName on</code> (and
       in all versions prior to 1.3) Apache will use the <a
       href="#servername">ServerName</a> and <a href="#port">Port</a>
  -    directives to construct a canonical name for the server. This
  +    directives to construct the canonical name for the server. This
       name is used in all self-referential URLs, and for the values
       of <code>SERVER_NAME</code> and <code>SERVER_PORT</code> in
       CGIs.</p>

  +    <p>For example, if <a href="#servername">ServerName</a> is set to
(Continue reading)

Rich Bowen | 3 Jul 12:40 2002

Re: cvs commit: httpd-docs-1.3/htdocs/manual/mod core.html.en

On 3 Jul 2002 rbowen <at> apache.org wrote:

> rbowen      2002/07/02 19:00:12
>
>   Modified:    htdocs/manual/mod core.html.en
>   Log:
>   Submitted by: Owen Boyle et al
>   Attempt to remove some of the confusion about what the "canonical name"
>   actually is. From discussion on users <at> 

And, yes, I'll make a similar change to the 2.0 docs, when I have a
couple more tuits.

>
>   Revision  Changes    Path
>   1.226     +20 -11    httpd-docs-1.3/htdocs/manual/mod/core.html.en
--

-- 
Rich Bowen - rbowen <at> rcbowen.com
As we trace our own few circles around the sun
We get it backwards and our seven years go by like one
	Dog Years (Rush - Test for Echo - 1999)
Rodent of Unusual Size | 4 Jul 05:45 2002

[STATUS] (httpd-docs-1.3) Wed Jul 3 23:45:32 EDT 2002

Apache HTTP Server 1.3 Documentation Status File.
Last modified: $Date: 2002/06/09 11:34:54 $

If you are interested in helping accomplish some of the tasks on this
list or otherwise improving the documentation, please join the
apache-docs mailing list by sending an empty message to 
apache-docs-subscribe <at> apache.org.

For more information on how to contribute to the Apache Documentation
Project, please see http://httpd.apache.org/docs-project/, and
http://apache-server.com/tutorials/ATdocs-project.html for an excellent
tutorial on how to get started with making your contribution.

              ------------------------------

Translations
============

* We appear to have people working on translation into the following
  languages.  These may just be the 'it worked' page, but if so the authors
  of those should perhaps be contacted to help do the rest.. :-)  Note that
  this list is NOT identical to that for the 2.0 documentation project!

  [Should we attempt to get a known-current authorlist together? --jsl]

  - Catalan (.ca)
  - Czech Republic (.cz)
  - German (.de)
  - Danish (.dk)
  - Estonia (.ee)
(Continue reading)

Rodent of Unusual Size | 4 Jul 05:45 2002

[STATUS] (httpd-docs-2.0) Wed Jul 3 23:45:39 EDT 2002

Apache HTTP Server 2.0 Documentation Status File.
Last modified: $Date: 2002/06/22 19:54:41 $

If you are interested in helping accomplish some of the tasks on this
list or otherwise improving the documentation, please join the
apache-docs mailing list by mailing to 
apache-docs-subscribe <at> apache.org

For more information on how to contribute to the Apache Documentation
Project, please see http://httpd.apache.org/docs-project/, and
http://apache-server.com/tutorials/ATdocs-project.html for an excellent
tutorial on how to get started with making your contribution.

              ------------------------------

- XML
    - The xsl transformations could be greatly improved to a) look better
      and b) use proper CSS+html rather than the horrible hack that
      Joshua did.
    - The build system does not work very well right now.

- modules docs
    - mod_suexec: very little documentation
    - mod_proxy: updates for 2.0
    - mod_status: updates for 2.0
    - mod_example: updates for 2.0

- man pages
    - Some of the man pages need to be updated for 2.0.  At least
      the httpd man page appears to be outdated, and perhaps other.
(Continue reading)

Rich Bowen | 4 Jul 14:38 2002

Re: [STATUS] (httpd-docs-1.3) Wed Jul 3 23:45:32 EDT 2002

On Wed, 3 Jul 2002, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:

> * Tutorial on "log files in apache"
>   - Rich has kindy donated the "4-part logging article on Apache Today"
>     articles that will need a little massaging.
>   - Chris Pepper <pepper <at> reppep.com> has offered to look into this.

Chris, (or anyone)

What is the status of this?

It seems that http://httpd.apache.org/docs/logs.html really fills this
need, and we'd rather augment it than duplicate it. It also seems that
my goal of putting this sort of stuff in a howto/ subdirectory has
largely failed, and generated more duplication and confusion than
anything else.

I'll poke at the logs document a bit, but I'm not sure that this needs
to stay in the STATUS doc any more. Comments?

--

-- 
Rich Bowen
Apache - mod_perl - Perl - CGI
http://www.ApacheAdmin.com/
Chris Pepper | 5 Jul 05:06 2002

Re: [STATUS] (httpd-docs-1.3) Wed Jul 3 23:45:32 EDT 2002

Rich,

	I was pretty much at a loss as to what was worth 
salvaging/rewriting from your articles in light of 
<http://httpd.apache.org/docs/logs.html>.

	If anyone has specifics of what they'd like to see, I'll take 
another stab at it; otherwise it should probably just come out of 
STATUS.

						Chris

At 8:38 AM -0400 2002/07/04, Rich Bowen wrote:
>On Wed, 3 Jul 2002, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>
>>  * Tutorial on "log files in apache"
>>    - Rich has kindy donated the "4-part logging article on Apache Today"
>>      articles that will need a little massaging.
>>    - Chris Pepper <pepper <at> reppep.com> has offered to look into this.
>
>Chris, (or anyone)
>
>What is the status of this?
>
>It seems that http://httpd.apache.org/docs/logs.html really fills this
>need, and we'd rather augment it than duplicate it. It also seems that
>my goal of putting this sort of stuff in a howto/ subdirectory has
>largely failed, and generated more duplication and confusion than
>anything else.
>
(Continue reading)

Rich Bowen | 5 Jul 05:21 2002

Re: [STATUS] (httpd-docs-1.3) Wed Jul 3 23:45:32 EDT 2002

On Thu, 4 Jul 2002, Chris Pepper wrote:

> Rich,
>
> 	I was pretty much at a loss as to what was worth
> salvaging/rewriting from your articles in light of
> <http://httpd.apache.org/docs/logs.html>.
>
> 	If anyone has specifics of what they'd like to see, I'll take
> another stab at it; otherwise it should probably just come out of
> STATUS.

Yeah. I'm +1 on that. I will take a look at
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/logs.html and see if any improvements can
be made, and I'll take this note out of status.

Thanks, Chris.

>
>
> 						Chris
>
> At 8:38 AM -0400 2002/07/04, Rich Bowen wrote:
> >On Wed, 3 Jul 2002, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> >
> >>  * Tutorial on "log files in apache"
> >>    - Rich has kindy donated the "4-part logging article on Apache Today"
> >>      articles that will need a little massaging.
> >>    - Chris Pepper <pepper <at> reppep.com> has offered to look into this.
> >
(Continue reading)


Gmane