Mailing List Archive: [STATUS] ADP (Thu 7-Aug-1997 23:27 MET DST)

[STATUS] ADP (Thu 7-Aug-1997 23:27 MET DST)

Aug 7, 1997, 2:27 PM

Post #1 of 3 (1808 views)

STATUS of the Apache Documentation Project (ADP)
================================================

The current ADP Team:
---------------------
(Just jump up and say you want to contribute!)

Ralf S. Engelschall <rse@engelschall.com> (coordinator)
Stanley Gambarin <stanleyg@cs.bu.edu>
Christopher Huber <chrish@wired.com>
Brian Slesinsky <bslesins@wired.com>

Goal of the project:
--------------------
(Feel free to fix me)

Initial goals:
1. Create an Apache Handbook and an Apache FAQ.
which contains most of the important material
from apache/htdocs/ and apache-site.
2. Format these documents both for online browsing
(at least HTML and ASCII) and paper printing
(at least Postscript).

Further goals:
1. Integration of more informations from apache-site
and apache-devsite and ApacheWeeks tutorials.
2. Creation of a User Manual in addition to the Handbook

Current state:
--------------

I've started to write an initial skeleton for the handbook by the use of
SGML-Tools. This was done to be sure SGML-Tools can be a acceptable approach.
But we are not sure, because SDF is also an alternative. Current test
handbook can be found on http://www.apache.org/~rse/.

Current Points of Discussion:
-----------------------------
(Feel free to add your votes and ideas!)

o Decision on the used markup tool:
=================================

Status: SGMLTools with LinuxDOC-DTD worked
fine for the initial handbook skeleton
and is also used for Linux HOWTOs and
FreeBSD Handbook.
But SDF is an alternative!

Options:
- linuxdoc-sgml 1.5
ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux/...
=> The predecessor of SGMLTools
Votes: RSE -1 (because obsolete)

- FreeBSD's sgmlfmt
ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/FreeBSD-current/...
=> Based on linuxdoc-sgml 1.4/1.5 with
enhancements.
Votes: RSE -1 (because SGMLTools is still better)

- SGMLTools 0.99.14
http://web.inter.NL.net/users/C.deGroot/sgmltools/
=> Provides an SGML-based approach and can
directly generate HTML, TXT and TeX (->Postscript).
Easy syntax because very related to HTML which
every contributor already knows.
Votes: RSE +1 (because currently best tool for SGML approach)

- Perl's Plain Old Document (POD) Format
perl5.004_01.tar.gz:pod/pod2html
=>
Votes: RSE -0 (because not powerful enough: images, etc.)

- Simple Document Format (SDF)
http://www.mincom.com/mtr/sdf/
=> Successor of POD. Leads to very compact source
(especially for lists) in contrast to the SGML approaches.
Works really nice and can be enhanced to fit out needs.
Very easy syntax (similar to POD), but not related
to HTML.
Votes: RSE +1 iff(!) the author Ian Clatworthy
enhances SDF in the following ways:
1. all of our needed features possible
with all of our needed output formats
2. output format Postscript directly
creatable via TeX as the postprocessor
instead of FrameMaker or WinWord.
Ian says he tries to do this enhancements
until the end of the next week. We should
give him a chance!

- ...???ANY MORE???...

o Decision how to work on ADP as a group
======================================

Status: A CVS area apache-docs can be easily created,
so every contributor can at least grab the stuff via
Anonymous-CVS (when done in the near future) to grab the latest
release. Changes are sent to apache-docs@apache.org (similar to
patches to new-httpd@apache.org) and are committed by the
coordinator.

Options:
- CVS area apache-docs
=> Good approach because we already maintain
our stuff in CVS and CVS provides good change histories,
etc.
Votes: RSE +1

- ...???ANY MORE??...

o Decision about the Table Of Contents
====================================

Status: As a start we should take Stanley Gambarin's toc idea and
enhance/modify it by doing votes and suggestions. The list was
posted by him to new-httpd and will be reposted by me when we
have votes for the above to points.

Sources we should consider:
- apache-site CVS area = http://www.apache.org/
- apache-devsite CVS area = http://dev.apache.org/
- ApacheWeek tutorials: http://www.apacheweek.com/
- Stronghold docs: http://www.c2.net/products/stronghold/docs/

o Decision about how to split up the work in the team
===================================================

!! This can be started when we have discussed the Table
Of Contents and are sure we have one to start with !!

Ralf S. Engelschall
rse@engelschall.com
www.engelschall.com

Re: [STATUS] ADP (Thu 7-Aug-1997 23:27 MET DST) [ In reply to ]

stanleyg at cs

Aug 7, 1997, 7:31 PM

Post #2 of 3 (1744 views)

Permalink

On Thu, 7 Aug 1997, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:

>
> STATUS of the Apache Documentation Project (ADP)
> ================================================
>
> Goal of the project:
> --------------------
> (Feel free to fix me)
>
> Initial goals:
> 1. Create an Apache Handbook and an Apache FAQ.
> which contains most of the important material
> from apache/htdocs/ and apache-site.

I am a bit unclear of what, or more precisely who is the
Handbook targeted for: is it targeted for the users of apache (webadmins)
or is it targeted towards developers (new-httpd, outside module
developers) or someone else ?
There is a great need to separate the two, as writing the docs for
the developers is completely different from the ones for the users.
Furthermore, I disagree on you plan to port all the existing docs to the
new format. Allow me to babble for a few seconds: porting all the docs
to the new format would require an immmense effort and by the time it is
completed, almost all of it would be outdated, as 1.3 version will be most
likely released and 2.0 would be mostly incompatible with current design
(although i am note sure, i don't know if anyone is). Therefore, it would
be a good idea to start from scratch in the areas which are unlikely to
change by 2.0 timeframe, but we are still lacking now. For example, CGI
specs are unlikely to change in near years and Apache would still be
passing same variables to every CGI script (even though internal mechanism
would have changed), so complete description of how it works, what
variables are present, etc would unlikely to change and the effort would
not be wasted. I do realize there is some overlap, but I would like to
emphasize stable long-term docs first, before moving to the newer stuff.

If immeddiate (i.e. 1.3) documentation is required, then i would recommend
splitting into 2 groups and working side by side.

Ralf: if it is possible for you to setup a table of contents on some web
page, would really appreciate it, as people may want to take a look at it
and add to it, otherwise we are serializing the things-to-do, which is not
as efficient.
Stanley.

Re: [STATUS] ADP (Thu 7-Aug-1997 23:27 MET DST) [ In reply to ]

rse at engelschall

Aug 8, 1997, 1:44 AM

Post #3 of 3 (1749 views)

Permalink

In article <Pine.GSO.3.95q.970807221231.12443A-100000@csa> you wrote:

> On Thu, 7 Aug 1997, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:

> >
> > STATUS of the Apache Documentation Project (ADP)
> > ================================================
> >
> > Goal of the project:
> > --------------------
> > (Feel free to fix me)
> >
> > Initial goals:
> > 1. Create an Apache Handbook and an Apache FAQ.
> > which contains most of the important material
> > from apache/htdocs/ and apache-site.

> I am a bit unclear of what, or more precisely who is the
> Handbook targeted for: is it targeted for the users of apache (webadmins)
> or is it targeted towards developers (new-httpd, outside module
> developers) or someone else ?

Yes, correct. We need a Handbook for the developers and adcanced webmasters
and a user manual for the avarage webmaster and normal user.

> There is a great need to separate the two, as writing the docs for
> the developers is completely different from the ones for the users.

Exactly. Good point.

> Furthermore, I disagree on you plan to port all the existing docs to the
> new format. Allow me to babble for a few seconds: porting all the docs
> to the new format would require an immmense effort and by the time it is
> completed, almost all of it would be outdated, as 1.3 version will be most
> likely released and 2.0 would be mostly incompatible with current design
> (although i am note sure, i don't know if anyone is). Therefore, it would
> be a good idea to start from scratch in the areas which are unlikely to
> change by 2.0 timeframe, but we are still lacking now. For example, CGI
> specs are unlikely to change in near years and Apache would still be
> passing same variables to every CGI script (even though internal mechanism
> would have changed), so complete description of how it works, what
> variables are present, etc would unlikely to change and the effort would
> not be wasted. I do realize there is some overlap, but I would like to
> emphasize stable long-term docs first, before moving to the newer stuff.

Yes, but I don't want to convert the existing docs manually. I want to write
perl scripts who do 95% of the conversion and the ADP team also has to enhance
it in the future for 1.3 and 2.0. Starting with not-changing topics is ok,
too. We should do both. Writing from scratch is fine for not-changing topics
and the remaining stuff is just automatically imported from the existing
stuff.

> If immeddiate (i.e. 1.3) documentation is required, then i would recommend
> splitting into 2 groups and working side by side.

No, it's not required, 1.3 is happy to be released with the current bunch of
HTML pages. That's ok.

> Ralf: if it is possible for you to setup a table of contents on some web
> page, would really appreciate it, as people may want to take a look at it
> and add to it, otherwise we are serializing the things-to-do, which is not
> as efficient.

I'll do this but first we should decide about the tools, because I hate doing
things twice just because we want a different language/tool. So please first
decide about the tool, then we discuss the TOC and then we discuss style
guides and split the work. Is this order ok?

Greetings,
Ralf S. Engelschall
rse@engelschall.com
www.engelschall.com