I've been playing with httpd-docs in order to duplicate its look'n'feel for flood docs. There are some problems with using httpd-docs stuff in flood, that I would like to share with others.
1. httpd-docs were written as HTML first, then converted to XML. Some docs are still hand-edited HTML (main index.html in particular). If we want to be XML-only, sooner or later we'll have to tweak XSL (adding some missing stuff), which basically means that we need our own XSL copy. 2. httpd-docs XSL is *very* Apache orientated. I mean: logos, indexes, and things like that. Sure, we can have our own XSL, but then it would be a pain to sync look'n'feel. After the switch we are basically on our own with layout. 3. httpd-docs are prepared for successfull httpd installation. Various language options are sufixed properly (.en, .de, .jp), and served because MultiViews are turned on in default httpd.conf. I think this just simply doesn't apply to flood, as it can (or even schould) be deployed on systems without httpd servers (or other resource consuming software). Internalization must be done by separate directories. 4. We need a cool 'flood' logo :). I can bug some people to do some logos, but maybe ASF has a procedure for that (like logo contest or somesuch). So how about a different approach for flood docs? Our own style/layout/logo, plain HTML output (no i18n sufixes), PDF out of the box (there's no XSL for httpd-docs to make PDF out of XML) and things like that. It *may* mean, we have to pickup different tool. Comments/Flames? ;) regards, -- Jacek Prucia 7bulls.com S.A. http://www.7bulls.com/
