On Fri, 8 Nov 2002, Andr� Malo wrote:
> * Joshua Slive wrote: > > > Please don't just remove the <module> tags around those. > > Yes! should we introduce a new attribute "createanchor" (="no" in that > case; "yes" would be default) or something? I would lean towards no. A <module> should always have a corresponding documentation file. The <module> tag is sort of our contract with the user that there is more stuff behind it. > Just another point, a little bit related to this: There are some modules > which don't appear separately (esp. mod_dav_fs, mod_proxy_http, > mod_proxy_connect and mod_proxy_ftp [and afaics some of the new auth > modules]). As you may see in CVS, I'm currently running through all the > docs, mostly correcting formal things... :) > > What is the desired way? The current behaviour is hiding the separate > (sub-)modules. I'd like to create explicit docs files and I'm willing to > write at least a base, we can work on. +1. They can be as simple as "This is a supporting module for <module>mod_proxy</module>" to start. Joshua. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
