On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 06:15:18PM +0200, Jacek Prucia wrote:
> 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.
Yeah, I think we can just add a flood.{sh|xsl|xml} file to
site-tools/httpd-docs-build and be done with it. Hopefully, most
of the flood-specific changes can be isolated to there. That should
be able to have the path to our .xsl file.
> 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.
True, but not a big deal, IMHO. I think it can be 'inspired' by
the look-and-feel of the new docs, but it doesn't have to be.
> 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.
Nah, I think keeping the .en, .de, .jp model is fine. We don't want
to make it complicated if someone adds translations of different
languages. I think we can make it so that the '.en' isn't suffixed
to English docs, so that might make it a bit easier for people who
don't place it behind an Apache HTTP Server. But, I believe separate
directories are a bad idea.
> 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).
However we want to do it. If you want to run a logo contest, that'd
be goodness. =)
> 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? ;)
I'd prefer using the XML-style and trying to leverage what the
httpd-docs guys have done in the way of the build system.
But, most likely, I won't have the time to write the docs, so if you
want to disregard what I'm saying - go ahead. The person who writes
the docs has the final say. -- justin
