On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 11:07:27PM -, Chris and/or Diana Johns wrote:
> With regard to Noirin Plunkett's suggestion for consistency (unless it was
> 'tongue in cheek'), I'd suggest that consistency would be better achieved by
> getting Harvard to take out any 'Harvard commas' that precede the w
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 r
With regard to Noirin Plunkett's suggestion for consistency (unless it was
'tongue in cheek'), I'd suggest that consistency would be better achieved by
getting Harvard to take out any 'Harvard commas' that precede the word 'and'
in other instances similar to the example given, which was:
> >We con
Just a few tiny suggestions for the 2.2 announcement, found at
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/dist/Announcement2.2.txt
>We consider this release to be the best version of Apache available and
>encourage users of all prior versions to upgrade.
For consistency with the Harvard commas e
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 06:46:49PM +0100, André Malo wrote:
> * Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
>
> > (c) just change the /docs/ -> /docs/1.3/ redirect to become /docs/ ->
> > /docs/2.2/
>
> Ehm. That is what you've suggested initially...?
Not quite :) (c) means just doing it, and accepting any
* Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
> (c) just change the /docs/ -> /docs/1.3/ redirect to become /docs/ ->
> /docs/2.2/
Ehm. That is what you've suggested initially...?
> How come? If someone requests invoking.html.fr they'll get the 1.3 FR
> version. If someone requests invoking.html they'll g
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 01:49:45PM +0100, André Malo wrote:
> They are not. The negotiation works different for 2.x. I'd
>
> (a) leave it as
The 1.3 documentation is much less readable than the 2.x documentation,
that someone looking for documentation on a feature get the much more
clearly format
* Colm MacCarthaigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's bit 6 months since the redirects were put in place, and we're about
> to release 2.2. Is it time that
>
> /docs/blah redirected to "/docs/2.2/blah"
> The vast vast majority of urls are compatible, and for those that are
> not, we can do
It's bit 6 months since the redirects were put in place, and we're about
to release 2.2. Is it time that
/docs/blah redirected to "/docs/2.2/blah"
?
The vast vast majority of urls are compatible, and for those that are
not, we can do;
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME
