Re: Patch for 1.3 PUT documentation page

Joshua Slive wrote: > > [good suggestions deleted] I forwarded it to ApacheWeek. -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "All right everyone! Step away from the glowing hamburger!"

RE: Patch for 1.3 PUT documentation page

On Tue, 16 Oct 2001, Joshua Slive wrote: > [good suggestions deleted] > > Of course, the person will probably never see these suggestions. It > came from a non-subscriber who I moderated through. I guess if you > send messages to lists you aren't subscribed to, you don't really care > that much

RE: Patch for 1.3 PUT documentation page

> -Original Message- > From: Cliff Woolley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [good suggestions deleted] Of course, the person will probably never see these suggestions. It came from a non-subscriber who I moderated through. I guess if you send messages to lists you aren't subscribed to, you d

Re: Patch for 1.3 PUT documentation page

On Tue, 16 Oct 2001, Arthur A Gwozdz wrote: > > page: http://www.apacheweek.com/features/put > Well, for one thing, the apacheweek site isn't under our control. You should send this set of changes to apacheweek directly. As far as format goes, for future reference, we ask for unified diffs as o

Patch for 1.3 PUT documentation page

page: http://www.apacheweek.com/features/put There were several relatively inconsequential grammar or spelling errors in the PUT page documentation. I've corrected them and included the altered html below in what I believe is the desired format for updating documentation. Changes: send &

Re: os-windows/7410: Documentation regarding Win32 Apache Server service installation is incorrect

From: "John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 12:21 AM > I'm not sure what all I might be able to offer but I run Apache 1.3.20 on > Win98 and had no problem installing as a sevice, running virtualhost, cgi > script, etc. The only glitch has been an inability to prevent users

Re: os-windows/7410: Documentation regarding Win32 Apache Server service installation is incorrect

Doing an outline based on my assumptions now. - Original Message - From: "Rich Bowen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 7:30 PM Subject: Re: os-windows/7410: Documentation regarding Win32 Apache Server service installation i

Re: os-windows/7410: Documentation regarding Win32 Apache Server service installation is incorrect

On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Rich Bowen wrote: > On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > > > Guys, > > > > I'm sorry, but I've been drowning in 'work-work' and 2.0 work :( Is there > > anyone who could take up this PR and update the instructions based on the > > Apache 1.3.20 installer for W

Re: os-windows/7410: Documentation regarding Win32 Apache Server service installation is incorrect

eedure for various winboxes. If my work is satisfactory I am willing to consider other projects along these lines. John - Original Message - From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 10:27 AM Subject: os

Re: os-windows/7410: Documentation regarding Win32 Apache Server service installation is incorrect

On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > Guys, > > I'm sorry, but I've been drowning in 'work-work' and 2.0 work :( Is there > anyone who could take up this PR and update the instructions based on the > Apache 1.3.20 installer for Windows? > > Essentially, they now choose "Install a

os-windows/7410: Documentation regarding Win32 Apache Server service installation is incorrect

Guys, I'm sorry, but I've been drowning in 'work-work' and 2.0 work :( Is there anyone who could take up this PR and update the instructions based on the Apache 1.3.20 installer for Windows? Essentially, they now choose "Install as Service (for All users)" and it just creates the service. O

Re: [Apache documentation][STATUS] (httpd-docs-2.0) Wed Aug 22 23:45:26 EDT 2001

I have started working on translating some of the documentation to Spanish. If there's someone else doing it please let me know so I don't reinvent the wheel Carlos - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For

Accessibility of the documentation and working on Spanish translation of the manual

A couple questions: Is there a concern for uniform accessibility of the documentation? I've just downloaded the CVS documentation for 2.0 and found out a couple things that I would like to change (mostly nitpicky stuff like alt attributes without values). The other question I have is wh

Re: Documentation.

On Wed, 4 Jul 2001, Jason Lingohr wrote: > On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 11:11:11AM -0700, Vernon Marshall wrote: > > > Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but I just joined the list. A nice > > DocBook xml backend gives you html/pdf/ps/rtf frontend with little extra > > pain. Any thoughts? > > I p

Re: Documentation.

On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 11:11:11AM -0700, Vernon Marshall wrote: > Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but I just joined the list. A nice > DocBook xml backend gives you html/pdf/ps/rtf frontend with little extra > pain. Any thoughts? I played with DocBook a while ago -- it was nice, but it'

Re: Documentation.

"William A. Rowe, Jr." wrote: > > Good observation... I'm forwarding to the keepers of the good stuff... > > - Original Message - > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 6:46 AM > Subject:

Re: Documentation.

Good observation... I'm forwarding to the keepers of the good stuff... - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 6:46 AM Subject: Documentation. > Dear mr. Rowe, > > I was looking on the website of

Re: Documentation project tutorial URL update...

I am currently travelling; at the moment I am in Brasil. As a result, my mail is piling up and I may not be very responsive.. :-/ The keyboard of Jason Lingohr chattered: > > Noticed that your link to http://validator.w3c.org/ doesn't resolve > anymore, and just letting you know that http://valid

Documentation project tutorial URL update...

Ken, Noticed that your link to http://validator.w3c.org/ doesn't resolve anymore, and just letting you know that http://validator.w3.org/ works (ie. dropping the trailing c). Jason. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[Fwd: REQUEST: mod_rewrite documentation addendum]

Acked. -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar Apache Software Foundation "Apache Server for Dummies" "Apache Server Unleashed" --- Begin Message --- Please add an entry on the sectio

Polish translation of apache documentation

Hi, I had translated polish apache start page and it's already in official documentation of apache server. Few months ago I discussed with some apache commiter about Polish translation of apache documentation and I've forgotten his name :-( - If you're that person, please reply m

Fw: Documentation you requested on mulitple volumes. (Last night's USENET.)

6, 2001 9:54 PM Subject: Documentation you requested on mulitple volumes. (Last night's USENET.) Dear Mr. Rowe, Thanks for your kind, and astoundingly prompt, reply to my question about the treatment of multiple-volume file systems (news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]). You invited me to attempt a write-u

Re: support program documentation

Joshua Slive wrote: > > Awh, just screw it. These scripts don't really do anything but > sprinkle a few ""s around. Yar, I had to go through and make lots of fixes on the output of man2html when I put my autoresponder.1 page online. Now, if someone wanted to muck with a troff HTML device driver

Re: support program documentation

On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Tony Finch wrote: > Joshua Slive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >The question is how to do this without creating a bunch of duplicate, > >difficult to maintain docs. We could just use "man2html" to convert the > >man pages, but this program creates horrible HTML, and would

Re: support program documentation

Joshua Slive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >The question is how to do this without creating a bunch of duplicate, >difficult to maintain docs. We could just use "man2html" to convert the >man pages, but this program creates horrible HTML, and would require >hand-tweaking of the output in any case.

support program documentation

At the moment, almost none of the support programs included with Apache are documented in the manual. However, most of them do have man pages. I think that we should add a section or link on the front page of the manual for "Support Programs" which will include -apachectl -apxs -dbmmanage -htdige

Re: MPM documentation

> > > 4. I believe that there are going to be many different MPMs using the > > > same directive names. Unless we can guarantee that all the MPMs will use > > > the directive in EXACTLY the same way, we will still need to document them > > > separately and make separate entires in directives.html

Re: MPM documentation

ause it doesn't rely on pthreads > anymore. Please, if anybody can come up with a better name, we need it. I don't think we will ever find a name (less than 500 characters) that will completely describe the module. That is what documentation is for. But, I think that mpm_multithread

Re: MPM documentation

On Sat, 18 Nov 2000, Tony Finch wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >> 1. mpmt_pthread is a really crappy name for a module. > > > >Agreed. It is even worse because it doesn't rely on pthreads > >anymore. Please, if anybody can come up with a better name, we need it. > > I think the importa

Re: MPM documentation

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> 1. mpmt_pthread is a really crappy name for a module. > >Agreed. It is even worse because it doesn't rely on pthreads >anymore. Please, if anybody can come up with a better name, we need it. I think the important thing is to make the distinction between mpmt_pthread

Re: MPM documentation

> 1. mpmt_pthread is a really crappy name for a module. Agreed. It is even worse because it doesn't rely on pthreads anymore. Please, if anybody can come up with a better name, we need it. > 2. Is this format appropriate? It is modeled as closely as possible on > the new format for other modu

MPM documentation

I just committed a first try at an MPM doc. Feedback would be appreciated. I figured I would just commit it, rather than post it here first, because 1. it touched a bunch of files so was difficult to review outside the repository; and 2. the 2.0 docs are in such a sorry state that I figured I co

Re: Apache Documentation]

PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 7:53 AM Subject: Re: Apache Documentation] > On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Doug Young wrote: > > > This is EXACTLY the problem faced by most regular (as in non geeky) users > > of apache. There's no

Re: Apache Documentation]

y ALL technical documentation is that by conventioni its written by someone EXTREMELY experienced. This practice guarantees that countless minor but critical steps will be glossed over. I wish someone would recognize that one of the main reasons why Microsoft & the Dummies books are so successful in

Re: Apache Documentation]

On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Doug Young wrote: > This is EXACTLY the problem faced by most regular (as in non geeky) users > of apache. There's no question that apache itself usually performs well, but > trying to make sense of the horribly obtuse documentation is a real feat. > I&#x

Re: Apache Documentation]

This is EXACTLY the problem faced by most regular (as in non geeky) users of apache. There's no question that apache itself usually performs well, but trying to make sense of the horribly obtuse documentation is a real feat. I've prepared a basic tutorial on FreeBSD setup / configurati

[Fwd: Apache Documentation]

;Apache Server Unleashed" <http://ApacheUnleashed.Com/>--- Begin Message --- Hi Ken: In WWW 143.4, you wrote: >If you have specific ideas for improving the Apache documentation, >let me know and I'll see about getting them integrated. And in the >next editio

New documentation: Virtual Hosting over Dynamic IP

I just spent some time bashing together some documentation for setting up a virtual hosting mechanism that works over dynamic IP. From my research to date I've not seen any other examples of this, so I'd like to suggest it be added to the main apache docs. You can view it at http:

Re: Opinions about API documentation

Julia Pond wrote: > > You could describe the SERVER_* constants separately *and* list them > under the scoreboard entry, if you wanted to. People might search on > "scoreboard", and it would be handy to get all pertinent info there. Even if they have separate entries, they're still listed in the

Re: Opinions about API documentation

board", and it would be handy to get all pertinent info there. Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: > I'm writing a bunch of the 1.3 API documentation pieces, > and so far I've been treating each identifier separately. > That is, there's a separate entry for each of HTTP_OK, &

Opinions about API documentation

I'm writing a bunch of the 1.3 API documentation pieces, and so far I've been treating each identifier separately. That is, there's a separate entry for each of HTTP_OK, HTTP_METHOD_NOT_ALLOWED, and HTTP_CONTINUE, and separate entries for SERVER_DEAD, SERVER_BUSY, and SERVER

Documentation project is open for business..

uple of days if no-one has any objection. Next: As you probably could tell from the recent spate of commit messages, the Apache HTTP Server documentation project is open for business. The documentation has been split off from the source code tree so people can work on it without having to have acc

Server Documentation

r any documentation that explains the server source code. Perhaps even a version of the source code with better comments. Any help you could offer would greatly be appreciated. Thanks, Jas

Re: New CVS modules for Apache documentation

S module, allowing a different, > wider, and probably less restricted group of people to work on > the documentation. > > The answer seems to be yes, that's a good idea. > > I see either two or four different development areas: > > 1. the actual httpd documentation, and the

New CVS modules for Apache documentation

documentation. The answer seems to be yes, that's a good idea. I see either two or four different development areas: 1. the actual httpd documentation, and the API 2. same as [1], only split into 1.3 and 2.0 trees Any thoughts? Ideas for module names (httpd-docs and httpd-api, httpd-1.3-docs, httpd

XML version of the documentation.

Has anyone actually ever translated (most of) the apache doc's in some sort of XML, or a semantic DTD controlled SGML file ? I am just looking into how feasible that would be given the current *.html as an import. Dw

documentation suggestions relating to user authentication

How about listing an address on http://dev.apache.org/mailing-lists for documentation bugs/suggestions? (FYI, I'm not subscribed to this list.) Where do I send suggestions for the FAQ? I'd like to suggest the following documentation clarifications: On these pages: http://www.apache.or

WWW Form Bug Report: "documentation amiguity" on OTHER: (fwd)

Can someone ack *me* so that I know mail to this address isn't lost. thanks - Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed Jan 1 15:24:25 1997 Subject: WWW Form Bug Report: "docume

Re: documentation

On Sun, 3 Nov 1996, Brian Behlendorf wrote: > docs/1.2/ Complete documentation for 1.2 If I am in fact donating documention for apache, this would be the way to go. I'm writing complete docs for a single version of Stronghold, out of which I can extract the Stronghold-speci

Re: documentation

changes I probably should have waited for. Eek. Finally, the directory structure should be more rigorously defined than it is now. Right now I *think* the logic is something like this: docs/ All documentation related to the "current" release of Apache Inclu