Mads Toftum | 1 Sep 12:33 2007
Picon

Re: Copyright year change

On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 12:53:41AM +0200, Erik Abele wrote:
> IMO the sum of all docs represent a single publication with a single  
> copyright date which should be based on the latest change (think of a  
> book) and since we don't place any copyright dates into single files  
> anymore (as we did with the old license header [1]) I think we're  
> good with updating it now...
> 
Agreed, +1.

vh

Mads Toftum
--

-- 
http://soulfood.dk
Rich Bowen | 1 Sep 15:02 2007

Re: Copyright year change


On Aug 31, 2007, at 16:55, André Malo wrote:

* Vincent Bray wrote:

Is there any particular reason (aside from tedium) that common.xsl
still has 2006 for the copyright year? Building the whole of the docs
takes 1 min 7 secs with this change for me in trunk. Should I clean
out my changes in all branches, change common.xsl and commit?

I'm not sure about our current policy and how it applies to the docs anyway. 
Are the generated docs a complete document with one copyright? Does every 
document have its own?

I know that we usually change it every year. Apparently it just got overlooked this year. I say go ahead and do it.

--
"She had a pretty gift for quotation, which is a serviceable substitute for wit."
W. Somerset Maugham


André Malo | 2 Sep 14:31 2007
Picon

Re: svn commit: r571928 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS

* Graham Leggett wrote:

> rpluem <at> apache.org wrote:
> > +     rpluem says: Without r571927 the documentation for mod_authn_dbd
> > fails +                  to build.
>
> I found that while trying to write the documentation, Firefox refused to
> parse the XML file at the start, complaining about the &nbsp; non
> breaking space sequence.
>
> Is &nbsp; valid in XML?

Given the proper Doctype, sure.
However, firefox refuses a lot. This does not mean it's not valid. The char 
entity problem is well-known, but invalid (firefox only uses DTDs out of 
the chrome scheme, for whatever reason). The doc build system incorporates 
all HTML char entities and is the authoritative source whether a document 
can be transformed or not.

nd
--

-- 
"Das Verhalten von Gates hatte mir bewiesen, dass ich auf ihn und seine
beiden Gefährten nicht zu zählen brauchte" -- Karl May, "Winnetou III"

Im Westen was neues: <http://pub.perlig.de/books.html#apache2>
Graham Leggett | 2 Sep 14:38 2007

Re: svn commit: r571928 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS

André Malo wrote:

>> Is &nbsp; valid in XML?
> 
> Given the proper Doctype, sure.
> However, firefox refuses a lot. This does not mean it's not valid. The char 
> entity problem is well-known, but invalid (firefox only uses DTDs out of 
> the chrome scheme, for whatever reason). The doc build system incorporates 
> all HTML char entities and is the authoritative source whether a document 
> can be transformed or not.

The docs at http://httpd.apache.org/docs-project/docsformat.html imply 
that modern browsers should work and that an older browser might not, 
and when Firefox didn't my first thought was that the XML was at fault, 
and not Firefox.

Is it possible to update this page to clarify that one should always 
rely on the reference transformation using Xalan+Xerces because 
concluding anything is broken? At the moment, emphasis is placed on 
Xalan+Xerces being used to prevent massive diffs only.

Regards,
Graham
--

Attachment (smime.p7s): application/x-pkcs7-signature, 4444 bytes
André Malo | 2 Sep 15:30 2007
Picon

Re: svn commit: r571928 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS

* Graham Leggett wrote:

> André Malo wrote:
> >> Is &nbsp; valid in XML?
> >
> > Given the proper Doctype, sure.
> > However, firefox refuses a lot. This does not mean it's not valid. The
> > char entity problem is well-known, but invalid (firefox only uses DTDs
> > out of the chrome scheme, for whatever reason). The doc build system
> > incorporates all HTML char entities and is the authoritative source
> > whether a document can be transformed or not.
>
> The docs at http://httpd.apache.org/docs-project/docsformat.html imply
> that modern browsers should work and that an older browser might not,
> and when Firefox didn't my first thought was that the XML was at fault,
> and not Firefox.
>
> Is it possible to update this page to clarify that one should always
> rely on the reference transformation using Xalan+Xerces because
> concluding anything is broken? At the moment, emphasis is placed on
> Xalan+Xerces being used to prevent massive diffs only.

Rephrased the browser note a bit. Is it better now?

nd
--

-- 
>>> Muschelflucht-Zusatzeinrichtung.
>> Shell-Escape ist ja noch klar, aber `Zusatzeinrichtung'?
> extension?
Feature.                          -- gefunden in de.org.ccc
Lucien GENTIS | 2 Sep 19:00 2007
Picon

error in caching.xml

Hi to all,

2.2.x branche

File manual/caching.xml

--- Line 627:
Probably "Thie hash incorporates" would rather be "This hash incorporates"

--- Line 632:
Probably 64^22 instead of 22^64
(64 possibilities for first car, 64 possibilities for second car, . . 
.,64 possibilities for 22nd car, so 
64x64x64x64x64x64x64x64x64x64x64x64x64x64x64x64x64x64x64x64x64x64)  ;-)

Cheers

Lucien
Erik Abele | 2 Sep 19:08 2007
Picon

Re: svn commit: r571928 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS


On 02.09.2007, at 17:06, Tim Bray wrote:

> On Sep 2, 2007, at 5:24 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
>
>> rpluem <at> apache.org wrote:
>>
>> Is &nbsp; valid in XML?
>
> The answer is complicated.  One approach is to use &#xA0; which is  
> kinda ugly but works in lots more places. -T

Yep, quite complicated - it has to do with Mozilla not loading  
external entities, etc. It's a long-known bug (since ~2000, see bugs  
#22942, #69799, #255747 and several others in Mozilla's Bugzilla);  
there are several work-arounds like using only internal entity defs,  
using &#xA0 and co or even populating Mozilla's <bin>/res/dtd  
directory but not one of them is really practical so we decided to  
just live with it... :(

Cheers,
Erik
Vincent Bray | 2 Sep 19:38 2007
Picon

Re: error in caching.xml

On 03/09/07, Lucien GENTIS <lucien.gentis <at> lorraine.iufm.fr> wrote:
> --- Line 627:
> Probably "Thie hash incorporates" would rather be "This hash incorporates"

This was fixed a few days ago by pctony in r569203. Time for an svn up :-)

> --- Line 632:
> Probably 64^22 instead of 22^64
> (64 possibilities for first car, 64 possibilities for second car, . .
> .,64 possibilities for 22nd car, so
> 64x64x64x64x64x64x64x64x64x64x64x64x64x64x64x64x64x64x64x64x64x64)  ;-)

Are those red cars or yellow cars?

Fixed in trunk and 2.2, thanks.

--

-- 
noodl
Paul Querna | 5 Sep 00:02 2007
Picon

Re: docs/manual/style/version.ent is not maintenanced?

Takashi Sato wrote:
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/2.0.x/docs/manual/style/version.ent
> 2.0.59... should be 2.0.61
> 
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/docs/manual/style/version.ent
> 2.2.3... should be 2.2.6
> 

Hmm. We should add this to the release managers documentation....
Rodent of Unusual Size | 6 Sep 05:50 2007
Picon

[STATUS] (httpd-docs-2.0) Wed Sep 5 23:50:21 2007

Apache HTTP Server 2.0 Documentation Status File.
Last modified: $Date: 2004-11-21 09:35:21 -0500 (Sun, 21 Nov 2004) $

For more information on how to contribute to the Apache Documentation
Project, please see http://httpd.apache.org/docs-project/

This document contains only documentation issues related to 2.0 alone.
For general documentation issues, or those that relate both to 2.0 and
to future versions, please see the same file in httpd-2.0 HEAD.

Gmane