Hi Joshua,
>> Michael Schroepl recently posted an URL to the complete apache-docs >> converted to xhtml-1.0 strict. Perhaps these docs can be a starting point >> for further discussions about the look/the html+css specs of the new xslt >> ?!? (this is exactly what they were meant to be) > Yes, I saw that, but I haven't looked at it in great depth. Does that mean you are not even interested in fixing the HTML coding bugs in the Apache 1.3 documentation? (I think I remember fixes being committed about such things only weeks ago.) > To be frank, I don't have the time to pay attention to 1.3 these days. I explicitly said why I used Apache 1.3: Exactly _be- cause_ most of you may consider it outdated, and it isn't in full maintenance any more. (And it is HTML, not somewhere on the journey from HTML to XML; if this migration process were already completed - and I mean for all translations! - then I would have used the 2.0 version for my "proof of concept".) I don't see that the Apache document layout has changed so much from 1.3 to 2.0 until now; so the discussion about which "logical primitives" are to be used in these docs shouldn't really depend on the Apache version, IMHO. > I don't want to discourage others from doing it, but I have > more than I can handle trying to get 2.0 in shape. I don't think this has anything to do with 1.3 or 2.0. It is more about defining what "shape" is going to mean in the context of CSS. Whichever Apache version would be ported to using CSS, the main work would have to be identifying which logical concepts are to be used to construct Apache documents (like "this is an example" or "this is a directive") and then use appropriate classes inside the HTML code. It isn't much work to write a couple of CSS lines - but it is work to specify rules about a unique look for all Apache documents - and to check whether anyone violated these rules (the latter being greatly eased by generating the HTML code from an XML structure that allows much less than full HTML does). If you don't want to look at these 1.3 files, okay don't do it. But maybe at least read the notes I wrote (and posted here) about the process that led to this result, as 80+% of these notes would be the same for Apache 2.0 docs for sure. These notes are the real result of the experiment - not the "Apache 1.3 in XHTML 1.0 Strict" files. Regards, Michael --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
