Noirin Shirley a écrit :
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 3:23 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
<wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
On 3/13/2010 10:41 AM, Noirin Shirley wrote:
If we're going to do a massive sed, my preference would be for Apache
HTTPD and HTTPD, because the capitalisation avoids the confusion
between httpd-the-server and httpd-the-command, and it's fewer words
:-)
Please note, Apache httpd [always lower case] is the httpd (short name)
application program from the Apache Software Foundation. Apache HTTP Server
is the title of the program.
If we're trying to give our users a better understanding of what our
project is in the context of the foundation, this is not the way to do
it. I've been hanging around here for 5+ yrs, and I can't parse what
you've written, I've no idea what you're suggesting each term refers
to--and "application program" never appears in our docs, as far as I
can see, so that doesn't help.
The letters HTTPD in upper case are nonsense,
because HTTP is capitalized as a specification and acronym, while httpd
is lower case following the convention that the program is installed with.
I don't see why that makes nonsense out of HTTPD in upper case.
"httpd" in lower case is, as you say, a convention (I don't know what
you mean by "the convention that the program is installed with?). That
doesn't mean HTTPD is nonsense - or HTTPd, or Httpd (let's not go the
LaTeX route though :-)).
If we want to get users on to a new name for the thing they've always
called "Apache", I think it's important that we make it as easy as
possible to know what the project is called, and that we disambiguate
between the name of the project and the name of the command.
If we go with Apache HTTP Server (httpd), we're failing on both
counts. First of all, users suddenly have to deal with two names for
the project (is it called HTTP Server, or httpd?), and secondly, one
of those names is the same as the command (so is that really a name,
or are they trying to remind me what the command is? Whatever, I'll
just call it Apache and everyone will know what I mean.)
Introducing "Apache HTTPD" [omiting Server], or "HTTPD" or "Apache Server"
all serve to further confuse this landscape. And this is certainly not
the work of the Apache HTTPD Server Project ;-)
I disagree. I think introducing a single term is the only way to clear
up this already-confused landscape. If the Diktat is that the project
is now called Apache HTTP Server, that's fine--but we need to stop
calling it httpd in that case, and make sure that any docs references
to httpd refer to the command, not the project.
N
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-h...@httpd.apache.org
Just my opinion :
Apache makes reference to several projects, and Apache web server
(although the first listed) is only one of them. So, "Apache" is to
vague to make reference to the web server, and "httpd" refers precisely
to the Apache HTTP daemon
So, it's difficult to determine exactly what term must be used in
what circumstance.
I think it depends on the context : if we talk about the server in its
whole (build, configuration, source tree, etc.), it's "Apache HTTP
server" ; if we talk about the behaviour of the server against requests,
it's "httpd".
I also think that "HTTPD" can be confusing ; it's either "HTTP"
protocol, either 'httpd" daemon.
Happy week-end to all
Lucien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-h...@httpd.apache.org
