Re: svn commit: r106229 - /httpd/site/branches/css-test

André Malo wrote:
> * Yoshiki Hayashi <yoshiki <at> xemacs.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>>++1.  I'm ready to help, too.  I was playing with web site
>>documentation to start providing translation of those pages
>>and wondered why we haven't moved to CSS yet.
> 
> 
> Just wanted to let you know: I've talked to the guy, who made a lot of base
> design work for the docs layout (Gernot Winkler) and asked him, if he 
> could do some outlines for the website, too. If this is ok for you -- he'd
> start working on it mid/late december.
> 
> nd

Just a ping, has there been any progress on this?

Thanks,

-Paul

Re: Portuguese-BR translations

Hi everybody,

  I don't know if anyone remember me, but I tried (and failed) to
translate the doccos to pt-br a few years ago, but never had someone
to review my work. Eduardo decided to take the burden and invited me
to help, so I gladly back.

  Anyway, I reviewed the *.xml.pt-br files and they are OK.

-- 
Luiz Rocha (lsdrocha <at> gmail.com)

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 00:02:16 -0200, Eduardo Tompson Pereira
<duaspila <at> ig.com.br> wrote:
> 
> Hi, here are some documents I've been working on.
> 
> #ls -R
> ./manual:
> 
> index.xml.meta
> 
> index.xml.pt-br
> 
> mod
> 
> new_features_2_0.xml.meta
> 
> new_features_2_0.xml.pt-br
> 

Re: [STATUS] (httpd-docs-1.3) Wed Dec 22 23:45:13 EST 2004

Joshua Slive wrote:
>>
>> Shall we revisit this and try to come up with a solution that isn't
>> dependent on http?
> 
> Sure.  Drop the docs from the default tarball and point people to our many 
> more-useful formats (web, ms-help, pdf, etc).

I assume you're joking.  Someone who needs the documentation, and who
can't access it online because they downloaded the software to be
installed offline, is going to feel warm and fuzzy when it finds
out that not only is there no documentation in the tarball, but it
has to go back online and choose a format of docco to be downloaded
and installed separately.

Who are we writing this docco for?  Ourselves?  Or for people who
need it?  Are we formatting it to make it easier for us to maintain,
or for them to use?
--
#ken	P-)}

Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist      http://Apache-Server.Com/

"Millennium hand and shrimp!"

Re: [STATUS] (httpd-docs-1.3) Wed Dec 22 23:45:13 EST 2004

* Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:

> Joshua Slive wrote:
> >> Shall we revisit this and try to come up with a solution that isn't
> >> dependent on http?
> >
> > Sure.  Drop the docs from the default tarball and point people to our
> > many more-useful formats (web, ms-help, pdf, etc).
>
> I assume you're joking.  Someone who needs the documentation, and who
> can't access it online because they downloaded the software to be
> installed offline, is going to feel warm and fuzzy when it finds
> out that not only is there no documentation in the tarball, but it
> has to go back online and choose a format of docco to be downloaded
> and installed separately.
>
> Who are we writing this docco for?  Ourselves?  Or for people who
> need it?  Are we formatting it to make it easier for us to maintain,
> or for them to use?

I find nothing wrong with supplying extra documentation tarballs instead of 
bundling it with the code. Actually, the more translations we offer, the 
bigger will every httpd download grow (it already takes more space than the 
code, btw). It's more than reasonable to separate the docs from the code 
and supply a docs download link (or more than one) in download.cgi.

I assume, don't have an ISDN or modem link, where some MB more or less *do* 
make a difference.

nd

Re: svn commit: r106229 - /httpd/site/branches/css-test

* Paul Querna wrote:

> Just a ping, has there been any progress on this?

yep. He's analyzing the current httpd site and said, he could come up with a 
suggestion within January.

nd
--

-- 
Winnetous Erbe: <http://pub.perlig.de/books.html#apache2>

Re: Portuguese-BR translations

* Luiz Rocha wrote:

> Hi everybody,
>
>   I don't know if anyone remember me, but I tried (and failed) to
> translate the doccos to pt-br a few years ago, but never had someone
> to review my work. Eduardo decided to take the burden and invited me
> to help, so I gladly back.
>
>   Anyway, I reviewed the *.xml.pt-br files and they are OK.

Thanks. I've committed just the pt-br.xml so far. (glossarylink was missing, 
there's the English "see glossary" used for now. You should correct it some 
time). Further I'm not sure whether the nativename should not contain a 
hint that's Brazilian Portuguese (it's shown in title the language link).

However, the data files themselves do not have a proper revision comment. 
I'm going to commit the files when they are fixed:

The line

<!-- $Revision: xxx $ -->

on top should read (for translations):

<!-- English Revision: xxx $ -->

Where xxx is the revision number of the English document the translation is 
based on. It is used for automatic checking whether a translation is 
outdated.

Re: [STATUS] (httpd-docs-1.3) Wed Dec 22 23:45:13 EST 2004

Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
> Joshua Slive wrote:
> 
>>>Shall we revisit this and try to come up with a solution that isn't
>>>dependent on http?
>>
>>Sure.  Drop the docs from the default tarball and point people to our many 
>>more-useful formats (web, ms-help, pdf, etc).
> 
> 
> I assume you're joking.  Someone who needs the documentation, and who
> can't access it online because they downloaded the software to be
> installed offline, is going to feel warm and fuzzy when it finds
> out that not only is there no documentation in the tarball, but it
> has to go back online and choose a format of docco to be downloaded
> and installed separately.
> 
> Who are we writing this docco for?  Ourselves?  Or for people who
> need it?  Are we formatting it to make it easier for us to maintain,
> or for them to use?

The idea is not to prevent people from downloading the docs.  The idea 
is to give them a *choice* at the time of download of the doc format 
that will work best for them, rather than giving everyone the same 
format.  Yes, this means that some people will need to download two 
things instead of one, but it also means that they'll get stuff more 
appropriate to their needs.

document location using SVN

1.3 documentation

The last few dozen docs patches have not made it back into the 1.3 docs.
It seems that we have, for all practical purposes, abandoned the 1.3
documentation. Is it the general concensus that it *should* be
abandoned, or is it just something that should be allowed to decide itself?

Discuss amongst yourselves ... 

--
When the truth hides
An eternity goes by
On the fault line
Between then and now

Re: document location using SVN

* David McCreedy wrote:

> Before the switch to SVN I could update the IBM TPF-specific documents
> using CVS:
>       cvs commit httpd-docs-1.3/htdocs/manual/readme-tpf.html
>       cvs commit httpd-docs-1.3/htdocs/manual/install-tpf.html
>       cvs commit httpd-docs-1.3/htdocs/manual/install-ztpf.html
> But I've been unable to locate these documents using SVN.
> Any ideas where they are now?

Still in CVS. There were problems while converting httpd-1.3 to svn (because 
of the somewhat broken cvs repos), so the docs were left in CVS in the 
first place.
Has someone news on the progress? Sander? Justin?

nd
--

-- 
Winnetous Erbe: <http://pub.perlig.de/books.html#apache2>