Small typo in rewrite/flags.html

Someone got lazy and forgot to fix up their copy/paste entry. Patch attached. With regards, Daniel. Index: flags.xml === --- flags.xml (revision 1300083) +++ flags.xml (working copy) @@ -308,7 +308,7 @@ RewriteRule oldproduct -

mod_cgi.xml should link to mod_ident for IdentityCheck

mod_cgi refers to core instead of mod_ident in regards to IdentityCheck. Patch included for trunk (and 2.4 I suppose) With regards, Daniel. Index: mod_cgi.xml === --- mod_cgi.xml (revision 1300620) +++ mod_cgi.xml (working copy) @@ -

mod_deflate should link to mod_env for SetEnv

mod_deflate refers to core instead of mod_env in regards to the SetEnv directive. Patch included for trunk. With regards, Daniel. Index: mod_deflate.xml === --- mod_deflate.xml (revision 1300620) +++ mod_deflate.xml (working

'See also: Match' should be removed as it is no longer used.

The see-also link to the Match directive(s) should be removed as it's no longer in use by Apache (Require/RequireAny/RequireAll now?). Patch included for trunk, yada yaday. With regards, Daniel. Index: mod_auth_form.xml === --- mod_

core.xml refers to mod_authz_host instead of mod_access_compat in the AllowOverride usage text

As the subject says, core.xml refers to the old mod_authz_host instead of mod_access_compat for the Allow, Deny and Order directives. Patch included as usual With regards, Daniel. Index: core.xml === --- core.xml(revision 13006

mod_authz_owner refers to core instead of mod_access_compat

mod_authz_owner.xml refers to core for the Require directive, which should be mod_access_compat instead. Patch included for trunk. With regards, Daniel. Index: mod_authz_owner.xml === --- mod_authz_owner.xml (revision 1300620) +++ m

mod_cache refers to mod_authz_host instead of mod_access_compat

The usual; Allow and Deny directives refer to mod_authz_host instead of mod_access_compat. Patch included for trunk. With regards, Daniel. Index: mod_cache.xml === --- mod_cache.xml (revision 1300620) +++ mod_cache.xml (

mod_authnz_ldap refers to mod_authn_file instead of mod_authz_groupfile

In the second AuthGroupFile link, mod_authnz_ldap incorrectly refers to mod_authn_file instead of mod_authz_groupfile. Patch included for trunk. With regards, Daniel. Index: mod_authnz_ldap.xml === --- mod_authnz_ldap.xml (revision

mod_proxy_html incorrectly refers to mod_log_config instead of core

mod_proxy_html refers to mod_log_config for the LogLevel directive, which is defined in core.xml instead. Patch included for trunk. With regards, Daniel. Index: mod_proxy_html.xml === --- mod_proxy_html.xml (revision 1300620) +++ m

vhosts/ip-based.xml refers to mpm_common instead of mod_unixd for User and Group directives

As the subject says, more of the usual mistake of referring to mpm_common instead of mod_unixd nowadays. Patch included for trunk. With regards, Daniel. Index: ip-based.xml === --- ip-based.xml(revision 1300620) +++ ip-based

ssl/ssl_faq.xml refers to mpm_common instead of mod_unixd

Same scenario as the previous docs bug I filed. Patch included for trunk With regards, Daniel. Index: ssl_faq.xml === --- ssl_faq.xml (revision 1300620) +++ ssl_faq.xml (working copy) @@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ Make sure that all parent

sections.xml: broken links and typos

- Referred to core instead of mod_alias for the Alias directive - Files directive was spelled "File" - MimeMagicFile was spelled "MimeMagicFiles" Patch included for trunk With regards, Daniel. Index: sections.xml === --- sections.xm

Last one today; env.xml refers to mod_authz_host instead of mod_access_compat

For the Allow and Deny directives, env.xml refers to mod_authz_host instead of mod_access_compat. Patch included for trunk. More fixes coming tomorrow - I'll be holding off on the rest, just in case someone shouts "You're doing it wrong!!". With regards, Daniel. Index: env.xml ===

The patch train rolls on: rewrite/proxy.xml refers to mod_rewrite instead of mod_proxy

Since there were no objections, I'll continue :) /rewrite/proxy.xml/ refers to mod_rewrite for the ProxyPassMatch directive, which is obviously wrong. Patch included for trunk. With regards, Daniel. Index: proxy.xml === --- proxy.

rewrite/remapping.xml: Typo fixes

- mod_rewrite was spelled /mod_rewite/ on one occasion - mod_alias was called simply /alias/ in a reference Patch included for trunk. With regards, Daniel. Index: remapping.xml === --- remapping.xml (revision 1300620) +++ rema

rewrite/flags.xml: Broken links

In rewrite/flags.xml: - The Deny directive in the F|forbidden section referred to mod_access instead of mod_access_compat - The Redirect directive in the PT|passthrough section referred to core instead of mod_alias Patch included for trunk. With regards, Daniel. Index: flags.xml

misc/security_tips.xml: refers to mpm_common instead of mod_unixd

In misc/security_tips.xml: The usual stuff with the User directive being broken since 2.4. Patch included for trunk. With regards, Daniel. Index: security_tips.xml === --- security_tips.xml (revision 1300620) +++ security_tips.xml

logs.xml refers to core instead of mod_ident

When referring to the IdentityCheck directive, logs.xml refers to core instead of mod_ident. Patch included for trunk. With regards, Daniel. Index: logs.xml === --- logs.xml(revision 1300620) +++ logs.xml(working copy) @@ -2

Oops, mistake made in patch for mod_authz_owner.xml, sorry!

I accidentally made a patch that would change /core/ to /mod_access_compat/. The actual replacement should be from /core/ to /mod_authz_core/. New patch included for trunk. With regards and apologies, Daniel. Index: mod_authz_owner.xml

mod_ldap.xml refers to mod_ldap instead of mod_authnz_ldap in AuthLDAPURL directive

As subject says, mod_ldap.xml links to mod_ldap instead of mod_authnz_ldap in when refering to AuthLDAPURL on line 680. Patch included for trunk. With regards, Daniel. Index: mod_ldap.xml === --- mod_ldap.xml(revision 130062

mod/mod_auth_form.xml refers to core instead of mod_request for KeptBodySize

As the subject says, moar broken links. Patch included for trunk. With regards, Daniel. Index: mod_auth_form.xml === --- mod_auth_form.xml (revision 1300930) +++ mod_auth_form.xml (working copy) @@ -265,7 +265,7 @@

mod_auth_basic refers to non-existent Match directive

The Match directive was removed/replaced in 2.4, so the see-also link should be removed. Patch included for trunk. With regards, Daniel. Index: mod_auth_basic.xml === --- mod_auth_basic.xml (revision 1300930) +++ mod_auth_basic.xml

mod_auth_digest refers to non-existend Match directive

Same as before, no more Match in 2.4. Patch included for trunk With regards, Daniel. Index: mod_auth_digest.xml === --- mod_auth_digest.xml (revision 1300930) +++ mod_auth_digest.xml (working copy) @@ -38,7 +38,6 @@ AuthName AuthTy

mod_autoindex refers to non-existent autoindex.xml instead of mod_autoindex.xml

In the "See also" section, mod_autoindex is spelled "autoindex" by mistake. Patch included for trunk. With regards, Daniel. Index: mod_autoindex.xml === --- mod_autoindex.xml (revision 1300930) +++ mod_autoindex.xml (working copy

core.xml: Broken link and a half-broken link.

core.xml refers to mod_authn_dbm for the AuthDBMGroupFile instead of the correct mod_authz_dbm. It also refers to mod_autoindex#FancyIndexing, which should be mod_autoindex#IndexOptions.FancyIndexing. Patch included for trunk. With regards, Daniel. Index: core.xml =

mod/mod_authnz_ldap.xml: Two typos

mod_authnz_ldap.xml referred to mod_authnnz_ldap instead of mod_authnz_ldap in two places. Patch included for trunk. With regards, Daniel. Index: mod_authnz_ldap.xml === --- mod_authnz_ldap.xml (revision 1300930) +++ mod_authnz_ldap

mod/mod_mime.xml: Two typos

mod_mime.xml referred to AddOuputFilter on two occasions. Patch included for trunk. With regards, Daniel. Index: mod_mime.xml === --- mod_mime.xml(revision 1300930) +++ mod_mime.xml(working copy) @@ -509,9 +509,9 @@

new_features_2_0.xml refers to mod_auth_dbm which is now called mod_authn_dbm

Since 2.2, the module has been renamed to mod_authn_dbm, so...broken link! Patch included for trunk. With regards, Daniel. Index: new_features_2_0.xml === --- new_features_2_0.xml(revision 1300928) +++ new_features_2_0.xml

Last patch of the day: vhosts/details.xml: broken links and some old 1.3 stuff that needed to go

A couple of references to /core/ should be replaced with /mpm_common/ The ResourceConfig and AccessConfig were old 1.3 remnants, what are they doing in these docs :( Patch included for trunk. With regards, Daniel. PS: The English docs are now 100% free of (internal) broken links! \o/ Index: d

Okay, one more: Small typo in mod/mod_proxy.xml

Ipadddr was spelled "ipadr" in a link. Patch included for trunk. With regards, Daniel. Index: mod_proxy.xml === --- mod_proxy.xml (revision 1300930) +++ mod_proxy.xml (working copy) @@ -1558,7 +1558,7 @@ As a

bind.xml: Refering to non-existent vhosts.html

As subject says, bind.xml was referring to vhosts.html, which does not exist. I assume it was meant to refer to the vhosts folder. Patch included for trunk. With regards, Daniel. Index: bind.xml === --- bind.xml(revision 1300928

ssl/ssl_faq.xml: Missing paragraph

In the Certificates section, there is a link called >>Why do connections fail with an "alert bad certificate" error? <<, however that paragraph seems to be missing in the section below. I don't know a whole lot about it, so no patch

rewrite/vhosts.xml: Points to non-existent #simple

As subject says, there's a link pointing to #simple, which doesn't exist. I am assuming that, what the author meant to point to, was the first rewrite solution offered on the page, which is in a section called #per-hostname, so linking to that instead would seem like the sensible thing to do.

httpd 2.2: logs.xml refers to core#identityCheck instead of mod_ident#IdentityCheck

As subject says~ Patch included for 2.2 With regards, Daniel. Index: logs.xml === --- logs.xml(revision 1301510) +++ logs.xml(working copy) @@ -242,7 +242,7 @@ almost never be used except on tightly controlled intern

httpd 2.2: core.xml refers to two non-existent sections

in 2.2 docs: 1. core.xml refers to mod_authn_dbm#AuthDBMGroupFile instead of mod_authz_dbm#AuthDBMGroupFile 2. core.xml refers to mod_autoindex#FancyIndexing instead of mod_autoindex.html#indexoptions.fancyindexing Patch included for 2.2 With regards, Daniel. Index: core.xml

httpd 2.2: mod/mod_authnz_ldap.xml refers to mod_authn_file#AuthGroupFile instead of mod_authz_groupfile#AuthGroupFile

As subject says. Patch included for 2.2 docs With regards, Daniel. Index: mod_authnz_ldap.xml === --- mod_authnz_ldap.xml (revision 1301510) +++ mod_authnz_ldap.xml (working copy) @@ -639,7 +639,7 @@ type="section">Location o

httpd 2.2: mod/mod_cgi.xml refers to core#IdentityCheck instead of mod_ident#IdentityCheck

As subject says, more broken links. Patch included for 2.2 With regards, Daniel. Index: mod_cgi.xml === --- mod_cgi.xml (revision 1301510) +++ mod_cgi.xml (working copy) @@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ REMOTE_IDENT - This will onl

httpd 2.2: mod/mod_deflate.xml refers to core#SetEnv instead of mod_env#SetEnv

As subject says. Patch included for 2.2 With regards, Daniel. Index: mod_deflate.xml === --- mod_deflate.xml (revision 1301510) +++ mod_deflate.xml (working copy) @@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ Note There is a e

httpd 2.2: mod/mod_ldap.xml refers to mod_ldap#AuthLDAPURL instead of mod_authnz_ldap#AuthLDAPURL

As subject says. Patch included for 2.2 With regards, Daniel. Index: mod_ldap.xml === --- mod_ldap.xml(revision 1301510) +++ mod_ldap.xml(working copy) @@ -574,7 +574,7 @@ If a connection is not successful with

httpd 2.2: mod/mod_proxy.xml refers to #ipadr instead of #ipaddr

Small typo. Patch included for 2.2 With regards, Daniel. Index: mod_proxy.xml === --- mod_proxy.xml (revision 1301510) +++ mod_proxy.xml (working copy) @@ -1470,7 +1470,7 @@ As a degenerate case, a SubNet wit

httpd 2.2: sectionx.xml refers to MigeMagicFiles instead of MimeMagicFile

Simple typo. Patch included for 2.2 With regards, Daniel. Index: sections.xml === --- sections.xml(revision 1301510) +++ sections.xml(working copy) @@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ about missing modules. In the following example

httpd 2.2: stopping.xml refers to core#Lockfile instead of mpm_common#Lockfile

As subject says~ Patch included for 2.2. With regards, Daniel. Index: stopping.xml === --- stopping.xml(revision 1301510) +++ stopping.xml(working copy) @@ -215,7 +215,7 @@ conditions with some configurations.

httpd 2.2: rewrite/flags.xml: Two broken links

1. Reference to mod_access#Deny instead of mod_authz_host#Deny 2. Reference to core#Redirect instead of mod_alias#Redirect Patch included for 2.2 With regards, Daniel. Index: flags.xml === --- flags.xml (revision 1301510) +++ fla

httpd 2.2: rewrite/proxy.xml refers to mod_rewrite#ProxyPassMatch instead of mod_proxy#ProxyPassMatch

As subject says. Patch included for 2.2. With regards, Daniel. Index: proxy.xml === --- proxy.xml (revision 1301510) +++ proxy.xml (working copy) @@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ Consider using either ProxyPass or ProxyPassMatch when

httpd 2.2: rewrite/remapping.xml: Two typos

1. mod_rewrite was spelled mod_rewite 2. mod_alias was spelled alias Patch included for 2.2. With regards, Daniel. Index: remapping.xml === --- remapping.xml (revision 1301510) +++ remapping.xml (working copy) @@ -249,7

httpd 2.2: vhosts/details.xml refers to core instead of mpm_common in two places

Patch included for 2.2 With regards, Daniel. Index: details.xml === --- details.xml (revision 1301510) +++ details.xml (working copy) @@ -177,8 +177,8 @@ KeepAliveTimeout, KeepAlive, MaxKeepAliveRequests, -

httpd 2.2: rewrite/avoid.xml: Updated link for mod_macro

Link was missing, so I added the link to fabien's mod_macro site. Patch included for 2.2. With regards, Daniel. Index: avoid.xml === --- avoid.xml (revision 1301510) +++ avoid.xml (working copy) @@ -155,7 +155,7 @@ event that yo

ssl/ssl_faq.xml: answer removed in 2.4 - reinstate or delete link?

In the 2.2 documentation, there is a section called `badcert` in ssl/ssl_faq.xml, which states: -- *Why do connections fail with an "alert bad certificate" error?* Errors such as OpenSSL: error:14094412: SSL routines:SSL3_READ_BYTES:sslv3 alert bad certificate in the SSL

Re: Adding "Docs overhaul" to new_features_2_4

On 23-03-2012 20:23, Rich Bowen wrote: Having reviewed this document, I have a number of remarks. 1) This appears to be a document about "multi-use SSL certificates", whatever that is. While useful content, it doesn't appear to be directly relevant to the Apache HTTP Server, or have a place in

Re: Relaxing docs review policy?

On 28-03-2012 15:36, Rich Bowen wrote: It has been mentioned several times that we'd have more translations if we'd relax the review policy a little. I'd like to propose that we loosen it up on trunk, so that the translations can at least get into the tree, and then actively solicit reviews (

Re: Retiring translations

On 28-03-2012 16:09, Rich Bowen wrote: On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 09:33:01AM -0400, Rich Bowen wrote: I'd like to propose that we retire (ie, svn delete) translations in 2.4 that are more than, say, 2 years out of date For a metric, Daniel has provided this: http://www.humbedooh.com/outdated/2.4

Re: Retiring translations

On 28-03-2012 16:57, Rich Bowen wrote: On Mar 28, 2012, at 10:53 AM, André Malo wrote: On Wednesday 28 March 2012 15:33:01 Rich Bowen wrote: I'd like to propose that we retire (ie, svn delete) translations in 2.4 that are more than, say, 2 years out of date, as they assuredly don't reflect th

Re: Retiring translations

On 28-03-2012 19:44, André Malo wrote: * Roy T. Fielding wrote: I'd prefer that we add CSS with an age-based discoloration of the page and associated watermark, but I have no time to find the right CSS. I like that. First step is anyhow to integrate an age check into metafile.pl or something.

Re: open doc bugs

On 31-03-2012 14:40, Daniel Ruggeri wrote: On 3/31/2012 6:47 AM, Rich Bowen wrote: Thanks. This is awesome. I have only one comment, and it's entirely a matter of preference. I prefer that documentation not say "this is easy to understand" and statements like that. It makes people feel stupid.

Re: open doc bugs

ch translations. With regards, Daniel. On Mar 31, 2012 16:15 "Daniel Ruggeri" wrote: > On 3/31/2012 8:06 AM, Daniel Gruno wrote: > > > > > Damn you for beating me to the AB ticket ;) > > I have back-ported to 2.4 and 2.2 and rebuilt html for it now. > > You s

Document on developing modules for 2.4 and onwards

Hello all httpd document lovers, As per our nifty little STATUS document, it came to my attention that we were missing an introductory segment on how to develop simple modules for httpd 2.4, so I took the liberty of drawing up a proposal for what we could put in place for this request. The draft is

Re: Docs Frontpage

On 10-04-2012 18:06, Igor Galić wrote: > Hey folks, > > I'm pulling this specific subject out, because I think the > way we represent ourselves to newcomers is important. > > As I mentioned in my last mail, this: > > http://httpd.apache.org/docs/current/ > > is terribly uninviting for several rea

Re: Syntax Highlighting

On 20-04-2012 14:49, Igor Galić wrote: > > Hey folks, > > for all those who haven't seen them yet, Daniel has started > working on developer documentation: > > http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/developer/modguide.html > > this also contains syntax highlighting. > I'm a sucker for syntax high

Re: manual/developer/modguide.xml is not a valid XML document

On 22-04-2012 14:24, Lucien GENTIS wrote: > Hi all, > > Have you tried to enter "./build.sh validate-xml" for trunk or 2.4 branch ? > > I get hundreds of lines containing > "manual/developer/modguide.xml:1647:125: Attribute "style" must be > declared for element type ." which hide other error

Re: manual/developer/modguide.xml is not a valid XML document

On 23-04-2012 01:42, André Malo wrote: > * Daniel Gruno wrote: > >> I've seen the errors, and I know of _a_ solution, which is to loosen up >> common.dtd in the build system to allow styles within a tag (and >> subsequently allow for inside a ), > > is no

Re: Syntax Highlighting

On 20-04-2012 14:49, Igor Galić wrote: > > Hey folks, > > for all those who haven't seen them yet, Daniel has started > working on developer documentation: > > http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/developer/modguide.html > > this also contains syntax highlighting. > I'm a sucker for syntax high

Re: Syntax Highlighting

On 24-04-2012 14:31, Igor Galić wrote: > >> What other languages are available for syntax coloring? Trying to >> remember what other examples we might have in the docs. Perl, I >> expect. > > httpd.conf syntax hilighting would be a good thing to have. > >> -- >> Rich Bowen >> rbo...@rcbowen.com

Re: Syntax Highlighting

On 25-04-2012 12:13, Igor Galić wrote: > > We had some discussion on IRC, and Daniel fixed up a test with > syntax highlighting for Configuration sections. Rich suggested > we keep it with the bluish grey that we've trained people to > look for. The outcome is this: > > http://www.humbedooh.com

Re: Syntax Highlighting

As some of you may have noticed, there has been quite a lot of traffic in commits@ these past few days. We have been testing out the new syntax highlighting feature, and decided to give it an actual go, rolling out highlighting for the entire trunk. The response has been quite positive, and we (Ric

Re: Syntax Highlighting

On 28-04-2012 04:00, Daniel Ruggeri wrote: > Do you have a few examples of different highlighters for different > languages? > http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/mod/mod_proxy.html and > http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/mod/core.html ... seem to be great > examples of httpd config highlighting. T

Proposal to move docs to Apache CMS

Hi all, Joe Schaefer has proposed that we move our documentation to the Apache CMS(?) system (or at least try it out with a copy of trunk). From what I have gathered with my discussion with Joe, this move would allow for certain different ways of managing our documentation: 1) We can continue to

Syntax Highlighting, part 2

Hello docs@, I have read the responses from people on both the mailing list, off it, and via other channels, as well as made a small non-scientific survey among the users@ people that showed a big approval (93%) of adding highlighting to the documentation, and it makes me quite happy that people a

Re: Proposal to move docs to Apache CMS

On 02-05-2012 23:40, André Malo wrote: > > More thoughts on this (unsorted): > > - Also it's a nice thing to check in documentation together with code. From > time to time patches arrive that way. In fact, I'd rather support more of > those. > > - Oh, patches. How does the CMS deal with th

Re: Proposal to move docs to Apache CMS

On 03-05-2012 00:13, Nóirín Plunkett wrote: > Damn. Because this one looks at the bold "Documentation" link that's > above the fold, clicks there, keeps navigating on for a bit and can't > find what she wants. I'm glad that you're able to find them, but > Subprojects isn't a heading that makes me t

Re: Proposal to move docs to Apache CMS

Clean slate here, because this is just some free thoughts: I am for moving both the site and the documentation to the CMS system if it indeed works as Tony explained. I'm also in favor of Noirin's suggestion about making how to contribute to documentation clearer. My train of thoughts as I start

Re: Proposal to move docs to Apache CMS

On 03-05-2012 09:20, André Malo wrote: > Maybe I've missed it (quite possible), but did you ask here on the ML? I've > heard a lot about IRC (or other) talks lately about this and that. Things > should happen on the list - and not only the conclusions. Maybe we already > would have a better self

Re: Syntax Highlighting, part 2

On 03-05-2012 15:49, Lucien Gentis wrote: >> > Just a question : is there a way to automate the update process of > add/replace tags in xml files ? > (something like replacing all tags by tags) > But all tags are not replaced, when there's a title, > tag is added . . . > > I'm just beginning

Re: Comments in docs

On 03-05-2012 15:54, Rich Bowen wrote: > Does anyone know of a way to integrate a third-party comment service > like, say, disqus or whatnot, into our docs, so that we could get direct > feedback from our audience? Or can you think of another way that we > might do this? > I like the general idea

Re: Comments in docs

On 03-05-2012 18:28, Igor Galić wrote: > >>> How does PHP documentation deal with the problem of spam? >> > [snip] >> "What is five minus one". But they also moderate the comments as >> they come in, which is a thankless job. I think that it's >> worthwhile, but will require some folks volunteerin

Re: Comments in docs

On 03-05-2012 19:07, Igor Galić wrote: > I'm pretty and sure that the disqus offers these things as well. > And while I know that it's not the Apache Way, because, it wasn't > invented here, I'm pretty sure it's a good idea to experiment with > something that already exists, because we invent and

Re: Comments in docs

On 03-05-2012 22:06, André Malo wrote: > > Is it possible to integrate different languages? (And how do we moderate > those?) > > nd Yes, from what I have read about the embedded stuff so far, we can make it distinguish between the various languages through the xslt by, for example with the Fr

Re: Comments in docs

On 04-05-2012 02:13, Kyle Hamilton wrote: > > On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Rich Bowen wrote: >> >>> >>> Is it possible to integrate different languages? (And how do we moderate >>> those?) >>> >> >> I expect people can post in any language. We can then use google >> translate >> to moderate th

Re: Comments in docs

On 04-05-2012 10:55, André Malo wrote: > > Another side note: > > We need to build a different version for online vs. shipped after integrating > comments. I don't think it's reasonable to burden the locally installed docs > with external references. > > nd > > ---

Re: Comments in docs

On 04-05-2012 11:39, André Malo wrote: >> Yes, I added a test for "$is-chm or $is-zip or $metafile/basename = >> 'index'" so it would only add the comments for our online version and >> only for non-index pages. And if I managed to screw that up, I'm hoping >> you'll lend a hand at fixing it :) >

[Vote] Add commentary system to httpd docs

I'll be a bad boy and top-post on this reply, as well as add dev@ to the list of recipients. In docs@, we have been discussing the possibility of adding comments to the various pages in our documentation. As the discussion has progressed, we have settled on the idea of trying out Disqus as a comme

Re: [Vote] Add commentary system to httpd docs

On 04-05-2012 21:04, Igor Galić wrote: > >> [+1] Add commentary system to the trunk documentation. > > > This may be worth a separate thread, but I'll just ask > it here, before I forget about it: > > Any chance we'll see a backport of this to /current/ ? > If so, will we display the same comm

Re: Doing the main site first (was Re: Proposal to move docs to Apache CMS)

On 05-05-2012 17:02, Joe Schaefer wrote: > Speaking with Daniel on IRC this morning convinced > me that pushing for docs CMS adoption at this point > remains a hard sell. We both agreed that migrating > the main site first to the CMS would be better for all > concerned, so let's go that route for

[Result] Re: [Vote] Add commentary system to httpd docs

support, Daniel On 04-05-2012 15:58, Daniel Gruno wrote: > I'll be a bad boy and top-post on this reply, as well as add dev@ to the > list of recipients. > > In docs@, we have been discussing the possibility of adding comments to > the various pages in our documentation. As

Re: [Result] Re: [Vote] Add commentary system to httpd docs

On 07-05-2012 18:09, Lucien GENTIS wrote: >> > Hello everybody, > > Just a question : > > Who will moderate non-english comments (if there are such) ? > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org > Fo

Re: svn commit: r1335366 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/style/xsl/common.xsl

On 08-05-2012 09:42, André Malo wrote: > On Tuesday 08 May 2012 09:35:25 humbed...@apache.org wrote: > >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1335366&view=rev >> Log: >> Small hack so the XSLT process won't turn into , thus >> messing up the DOM tree. > > Suggestion: document.write() the div c

Re: svn commit: r1335581 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/style/xsl/common.xsl

On 08-05-2012 17:25, André Malo wrote: > On Tuesday 08 May 2012 17:20:08 humbed...@apache.org wrote: >> Author: humbedooh >> Date: Tue May 8 15:20:07 2012 >> New Revision: 1335581 >> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1335581&view=rev >> Log: >> Add something between and so the same thing

Re: Questions for further discussion about Documentation commentary system

On 09-05-2012 13:35, Lucien Gentis wrote: > Hello everybody, > > * Should translations have their own separate discussion threads, or > should they show the same thread as the English version? > > I think each translation should have their own separate discussion > threads, because I can't

Googling for documentation

Hello all you docs@ people, When a user wants to learn more about httpd, one of the most common ways is to google "apache [something]", for example "apache directoryindex", "apache virtualhost", "apache rewrite" and so on. When a user does this particular bit, the top suggestion from Google is, in

Site analysis tools

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I've been wondering for some time now, how we can improve the site to give the users a better experience and a faster flow from question to answer. In that search, the question of doing a proper facts-based analysis keeps popping up. What I would esse

Re: [Result] Re: [Vote] Add commentary system to httpd docs

Sending to docs@ as well, as this applies to that list too. Grumpiness may occur, so apologies in advance. On 05/19/2012 09:32 AM, Kaspar Brand wrote: > Looking at the call for votes [retained below for reference] and at the > votes, I'm not sure if the +1 voters were aware of the specific > "mech

Comment system, take two

In light of recent concerns about the Disqus system, I've taken it upon myself to figure out an alternative we can use for adding comments to our pages. And so, through the better half of a day, I worked on creating a new system that is without any evil tracking mechanisms of any sort except for wh

Re: Comment system, take two

On 05/22/2012 11:25 PM, Rainer Jung wrote: > I like it. > > +1 > > Concerning production readyness, some points come to mind: > > - Did you pay attention on escaping problematic input? I saw some > escaping, but didn't thoroughly test it. We don't want XSS and such. Yes, because the text is inserte

Re: Comment system, take two

On 05/23/2012 09:15 AM, Tony Stevenson wrote: > I said running php on the main webservers would very likely with a no, I didnt say it would do that. If the service doesnt have to run on the same vhost as the main httpd.a.o site then we could run the service elsewhere in our infrastructure. Sorry, y

Re: [Httpd Wiki] Update of "DocsCommentSystem" by DanielGruno

On 05/23/2012 09:26 AM, Lucien Gentis wrote: > Hello everybody, > > Le 23 mai 2012 à 06:28, Apache Wiki a écrit : > >> >> == Questions for further discussion == >> * Should translations have their own separate discussion threads, >> or should they show the same thread as the English version? > >

Comment system, take two and a half

Since people have begun talking about the idea of hosting/using this system within the ASF, I've added some more kinks to the system now. Those of you who have created an account (or those who create one and let me know) will now see a "moderate" link when they are viewing comments while logged in

Re: Comment system, take two and a half

ey be kept separate? I'm leaning towards the latter myself, as a lot of pages really have changed quite a bit, and it'd become confusing if someone is suddenly commenting on a 2.2 issue and it shows up in the 2.4 docs. Any input would be greatly appreciated. With regards, Daniel. On 05/23/2

Re: Comment system, take two and a half

On 05/28/2012 09:38 PM, Gregg Smith wrote: > Each branch different, 2.2 & 2.4 have some big differences between > them in various areas. My 2 cents anyway. What I'm perhaps more curious to get sorted out is whether we should consider the trunk and the 2.4 documentation separate entities, or whethe

Re: Comment system, take two and a half

On 05/30/2012 12:03 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > I think we should keep them, all. That said, I think they need to be most > recent > first, and it would be really cool to fade them from black to very light gray > over time unless they are voted up as 'useful info' within the most recent >

Re: Comment system, take two and a half

Aaand that wasn't Lucien's comment that showed up in that email. Apologies, my email client seems to be playing tricks with me :) What I was replying to was this: if commenter wishes his/her comment to be displayed in all pages, it has to be written in english, and posted in the english page, and

Comment system, take two and three quarters

Since it's generally better to say too much than say too little, here's an update on what's going on with the commentary business for the docs. The work on moving the new comment system to infra is now in progress, and hopefully it should be up and running on comments.apache.org within a reasonabl

  1   2   >