Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: Apache: Docs

[proposed] remove docs/1.3/

 

 

Apache docs RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


wrowe at rowe-clan

Feb 25, 2012, 11:35 PM

Post #1 of 23 (594 views)
Permalink
[proposed] remove docs/1.3/

On 2/25/2012 10:09 AM, minfrin [at] apache wrote:
> Author: minfrin
> Date: Sat Feb 25 16:09:03 2012
> New Revision: 1293634
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1293634&view=rev
> Log:
> The current version of the server is v2.4.
>
> Modified:
> httpd/httpd/branches/1.3.x/htdocs/manual/misc/header.html

Ok folks, it's been a "few years"... over 10, in fact, that 1.3 has
been dead.

Doesn't it seem overtime to take down 1.3 docs from the site, altogether?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe [at] httpd
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help [at] httpd


nick at webthing

Feb 26, 2012, 1:12 AM

Post #2 of 23 (585 views)
Permalink
Re: [proposed] remove docs/1.3/ [In reply to]

On 26 Feb 2012, at 07:35, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:

> Ok folks, it's been a "few years"... over 10, in fact, that 1.3 has
> been dead.
>
> Doesn't it seem overtime to take down 1.3 docs from the site, altogether?

From the site?

There's a principle here: we should not invalidate working URLs.
If we take down existing docs, then should at least offer up an
errordocument pointing to a tarball of historic docs for anyone
whose interest is historic. Not just a tarball that needs to be
built and installed before it can easily be read, but a simple clone,
maybe with a .htaccess for the language negotiation.

As well as, of course, a pointer to current docs.

--
Nick Kew
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe [at] httpd
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help [at] httpd


minfrin at sharp

Feb 26, 2012, 2:34 AM

Post #3 of 23 (583 views)
Permalink
Re: [proposed] remove docs/1.3/ [In reply to]

On 26 Feb 2012, at 9:35 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:

> Ok folks, it's been a "few years"... over 10, in fact, that 1.3 has
> been dead.
>
> Doesn't it seem overtime to take down 1.3 docs from the site, altogether?

I find that from time to time, v1.3 documentation comes up in Google searches, which probably confuses users who don't know what they're looking at.

+1.

Regards,
Graham
--


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe [at] httpd
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help [at] httpd


nd at perlig

Feb 26, 2012, 12:11 PM

Post #4 of 23 (583 views)
Permalink
Re: [proposed] remove docs/1.3/ [In reply to]

* William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:

> On 2/25/2012 10:09 AM, minfrin [at] apache wrote:
> > Author: minfrin
> > Date: Sat Feb 25 16:09:03 2012
> > New Revision: 1293634
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1293634&view=rev
> > Log:
> > The current version of the server is v2.4.
> >
> > Modified:
> > httpd/httpd/branches/1.3.x/htdocs/manual/misc/header.html
>
> Ok folks, it's been a "few years"... over 10, in fact, that 1.3 has
> been dead.
>
> Doesn't it seem overtime to take down 1.3 docs from the site, altogether?

Why?

nd
--
"Umfassendes Werk (auch fuer Umsteiger vom Apache 1.3)"
-- aus einer Rezension

<http://pub.perlig.de/books.html#apache2>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe [at] httpd
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help [at] httpd


nd at perlig

Feb 26, 2012, 12:28 PM

Post #5 of 23 (581 views)
Permalink
Re: [proposed] remove docs/1.3/ [In reply to]

Folks, please keep this discussion on docs@, too.

* Rich Bowen wrote:

> On Feb 26, 2012, at 7:30 AM, Tim Bannister wrote:
> > On 26 Feb 2012, at 10:34, Graham Leggett wrote:
> >> On 26 Feb 2012, at 9:35 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> >>> Ok folks, it's been a "few years"... over 10, in fact, that 1.3 has
> >>> been dead.
> >>>
> >>> Doesn't it seem overtime to take down 1.3 docs from the site,
> >>> altogether?
> >>
> >> I find that from time to time, v1.3 documentation comes up in Google
> >> searches, which probably confuses users who don't know what they're
> >> looking at.
> >
> > There are ways to leave it there but persuade crawlers not to index it.
> > Maybe even serve it with 410 status and some JavaScript to point out
> > that the page is deprecated.
> >
> > I think the first one is worthwhile and the second one is not worth the
> > extra effort.
>
> We're already using the
>
> <link rel="canonical" href="http://httpd.apache.org/docs/current/"/>
>
> to tell Google not to index the pages, although that's not (yet) on all
> of the 1.3 doc pages - Unfortunately that's something of a manual process
> due to the fact that the 1.3 docs are in HTML, not generated, and that
> not every page in the 1.3 docs has an exact corollary in the /current/
> docs.
>
> There's certainly more we can do to purge it from search engines without
> making it completely unavailable.
>
> I'm somewhat torn on whether we want it to go away entirely - I tend to
> think that what Nick suggests - removing it but making it available as a
> tarball - satisfies those folks who are still running 1.3 for some reason
> that they consider legitimate.
>
> So, +1 to removing the /docs/1.3/ directory, and also to tarring it up
> and making it downloadable from a errordocument that loads for /docs/1.3/
> requests. A .htaccess file with the content negotiation stuff would also
> be a friendly thing to include in that, as Nick suggests.
>
> Prior to doing that, there are some changes that we need to make the
> pointers in them to the current docs actually go the right place. Some of
> the pages reference 2.2 as the current version, and also /current/ still
> points to 2.2. So, give us a moment to resolve those two issues …
>
> --
> Rich Bowen
> rbowen [at] rcbowen :: @rbowen
> rbowen [at] apache



--
print "Just Another Perl Hacker";

# André Malo, <http://pub.perlig.de/> #

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe [at] httpd
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help [at] httpd


jim at apache

Feb 27, 2012, 5:15 AM

Post #6 of 23 (567 views)
Permalink
Re: [proposed] remove docs/1.3/ [In reply to]

On Feb 26, 2012, at 2:35 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:

> On 2/25/2012 10:09 AM, minfrin [at] apache wrote:
>> Author: minfrin
>> Date: Sat Feb 25 16:09:03 2012
>> New Revision: 1293634
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1293634&view=rev
>> Log:
>> The current version of the server is v2.4.
>>
>> Modified:
>> httpd/httpd/branches/1.3.x/htdocs/manual/misc/header.html
>
> Ok folks, it's been a "few years"... over 10, in fact, that 1.3 has
> been dead.
>

It's an actively used corpse, fwiw...


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe [at] httpd
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help [at] httpd


wrowe at rowe-clan

Feb 27, 2012, 8:00 AM

Post #7 of 23 (566 views)
Permalink
Re: [proposed] remove docs/1.3/ [In reply to]

On 2/26/2012 2:11 PM, André Malo wrote:
> * William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>
>> On 2/25/2012 10:09 AM, minfrin [at] apache wrote:
>>> Author: minfrin
>>> Date: Sat Feb 25 16:09:03 2012
>>> New Revision: 1293634
>>>
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1293634&view=rev
>>> Log:
>>> The current version of the server is v2.4.
>>>
>>> Modified:
>>> httpd/httpd/branches/1.3.x/htdocs/manual/misc/header.html
>>
>> Ok folks, it's been a "few years"... over 10, in fact, that 1.3 has
>> been dead.
>>
>> Doesn't it seem overtime to take down 1.3 docs from the site, altogether?
>
> Why?

Because 1.3 code and docs are no longer maintained. Because 1.3 docs
shipped in the tarball, they got the whole deal when they downloaded it.

By continuing to publish something out-of-date, we imply to users that
there is some support of that software that does not in fact exist IMHO.
Serving out-of-date docs is a disservice to our users. I agree that
anyone hitting a 1.3/ URL should be redirected to a pointer that they
need to re-obtain the tarball and use the embedded docs shipped with
httpd 1.3.42.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe [at] httpd
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help [at] httpd


minfrin at sharp

Feb 27, 2012, 8:04 AM

Post #8 of 23 (564 views)
Permalink
Re: [proposed] remove docs/1.3/ [In reply to]

On 27 Feb 2012, at 6:00 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:

> Because 1.3 code and docs are no longer maintained. Because 1.3 docs
> shipped in the tarball, they got the whole deal when they downloaded it.
>
> By continuing to publish something out-of-date, we imply to users that
> there is some support of that software that does not in fact exist IMHO.
> Serving out-of-date docs is a disservice to our users. I agree that
> anyone hitting a 1.3/ URL should be redirected to a pointer that they
> need to re-obtain the tarball and use the embedded docs shipped with
> httpd 1.3.42.

+1.

Regards,
Graham
--


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe [at] httpd
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help [at] httpd


nd at perlig

Feb 27, 2012, 11:16 AM

Post #9 of 23 (565 views)
Permalink
Re: [proposed] remove docs/1.3/ [In reply to]

* William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:

> On 2/26/2012 2:11 PM, André Malo wrote:
> > * William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> >> Doesn't it seem overtime to take down 1.3 docs from the site,
> >> altogether?
> >
> > Why?
>
> Because 1.3 code and docs are no longer maintained. Because 1.3 docs
> shipped in the tarball, they got the whole deal when they downloaded it.
>
> By continuing to publish something out-of-date, we imply to users that
> there is some support of that software that does not in fact exist IMHO.
> Serving out-of-date docs is a disservice to our users. I agree that
> anyone hitting a 1.3/ URL should be redirected to a pointer that they
> need to re-obtain the tarball and use the embedded docs shipped with
> httpd 1.3.42.

I don't think so. A *lot* of links out there still point to these docs (and
that won't change). If not for anything else, the 1.3 docs publication can
still be used to point out history and differences and support
argumentation. It's hard to reference a tarball (which most people didn't
even download).

Furthermore: most people I know, who are still using 1.3, don't use it,
because they want to, they use it, because they have no other choice for
some reason or another.

A compromise I'd actively support would be:

- to not only put these red blocks above each document, but
provide 'position: fixed' block, being always visible (for modern
browsers) (maybe on the left side, simply saying "UNSUPPORTED SOFTWARE" or
something, linking the read block above.)

- put robots=noindex into the documents and/or add a line to the robots.txt

- we could probably remove 1.3 docs from the navigation

nd
--
package Hacker::Perl::Another::Just;print
qq~@{[reverse split/::/ =>__PACKAGE__]}~;

# André Malo # http://www.perlig.de #

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe [at] httpd
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help [at] httpd


rbowen at rcbowen

Feb 27, 2012, 2:04 PM

Post #10 of 23 (565 views)
Permalink
Re: [proposed] remove docs/1.3/ [In reply to]

On Feb 27, 2012, at 2:16 PM, Andr Malo wrote:

>
> A compromise I'd actively support would be:
>
> - to not only put these red blocks above each document, but
> provide 'position: fixed' block, being always visible (for modern
> browsers) (maybe on the left side, simply saying "UNSUPPORTED SOFTWARE" or
> something, linking the read block above.)

I started working on this a while back. It's more work than you'd think, because the HTML files aren't generated from source, like in the 2.x docs, but are static HTML files, with individual differences. I was part way through this when I changed jobs, and the changes were lost with my work laptop. D'oh! So I need to start that effort over again.

>
> - put robots=noindex into the documents and/or add a line to the robots.txt

Yeah, we can do that too.

>
> - we could probably remove 1.3 docs from the navigation

I thought we'd already done that. Apparently not. Doing it now.

--
Rich Bowen
rbowen [at] rcbowen :: @rbowen
rbowen [at] apache


rbowen at rcbowen

Feb 28, 2012, 6:57 AM

Post #11 of 23 (560 views)
Permalink
Re: [proposed] remove docs/1.3/ [In reply to]

On Feb 26, 2012, at 12:52 PM, Nick Kew wrote:

>> We're already using the
>>
>> <link rel="canonical" href="http://httpd.apache.org/docs/current/"/>
>>
>> to tell Google not to index the pages, although that's not (yet) on all of the 1.3 doc pages - Unfortunately that's something of a manual process due to the fact that the 1.3 docs are in HTML, not generated, and that not every page in the 1.3 docs has an exact corollary in the /current/ docs.
>
> WTF?
>
> That's what robots.txt is for! Surely we can use that to stop indexing 2.0
> as well as 1.3? Maybe even 2.2 once 2.4 is windows-ready and in the distros?

The rel canonical thing is a way to actively update the Google index for a particular page and search term, and has been very effective in updating certain searches. For example, searching Google for "rewriterule" has long given the 1.3 Rewrite Guide, but within 24 hours of adding a rel canonical tag, it started pointing to the 2.2 mod_rewrite docs as the top hit.

--
Rich Bowen
rbowen [at] rcbowen :: @rbowen
rbowen [at] apache


isoma at jellybaby

Mar 1, 2012, 3:39 PM

Post #12 of 23 (548 views)
Permalink
Re: [proposed] remove docs/1.3/ [In reply to]

On 28 Feb 2012, at 14:57, Rich Bowen wrote:

>> That's what robots.txt is for! Surely we can use that to stop indexing 2.0 as well as 1.3? Maybe even 2.2 once 2.4 is windows-ready and in the distros?
>
> The rel canonical thing is a way to actively update the Google index for a particular page and search term, and has been very effective in updating certain searches. For example, searching Google for "rewriterule" has long given the 1.3 Rewrite Guide, but within 24 hours of adding a rel canonical tag, it started pointing to the 2.2 mod_rewrite docs as the top hit.

I agree with Nick.
Why not change http://httpd.apache.org/robots.txt so that the 1.3 documents are no longer crawled? If I wanted to go through each page to make more fine-grained changes I'd only end up adding:
<meta name="robots" content="noindex">

which does almost exactly the same thing, for more effort.


The ASF doesn't really need extra help getting the top Google / Bing / whatever hit for httpd, Apache etc. That's why most people use Link: rel="canonical": they want to preserve their PageRank.
But this discussion has been about the 1.3 docs having *too much* PageRank.


I can spot one downside. Excluding a document with robots.txt also blocks access to historical versions via web.archive.org
Is this important?

--
Tim Bannister isoma [at] jellybaby
Attachments: smime.p7s (4.29 KB)


rbowen at rcbowen

Mar 1, 2012, 6:54 PM

Post #13 of 23 (548 views)
Permalink
Re: [proposed] remove docs/1.3/ [In reply to]

On Mar 1, 2012, at 6:39 PM, Tim Bannister wrote:

> I agree with Nick.
> Why not change http://httpd.apache.org/robots.txt so that the 1.3 documents are no longer crawled? If I wanted to go through each page to make more fine-grained changes I'd only end up adding:
> <meta name="robots" content="noindex">
>
> which does almost exactly the same thing, for more effort.

We already did that (the noindex bit).

--
Rich Bowen
rbowen [at] rcbowen :: @rbowen
rbowen [at] apache


rbowen at rcbowen

Mar 2, 2012, 4:07 AM

Post #14 of 23 (540 views)
Permalink
Re: [proposed] remove docs/1.3/ [In reply to]

On Mar 1, 2012, at 6:39 PM, Tim Bannister wrote:

> On 28 Feb 2012, at 14:57, Rich Bowen wrote:
>
>>> That's what robots.txt is for! Surely we can use that to stop indexing 2.0 as well as 1.3? Maybe even 2.2 once 2.4 is windows-ready and in the distros?
>>
>> The rel canonical thing is a way to actively update the Google index for a particular page and search term, and has been very effective in updating certain searches. For example, searching Google for "rewriterule" has long given the 1.3 Rewrite Guide, but within 24 hours of adding a rel canonical tag, it started pointing to the 2.2 mod_rewrite docs as the top hit.
>
> I agree with Nick.
> Why not change http://httpd.apache.org/robots.txt so that the 1.3 documents are no longer crawled? If I wanted to go through each page to make more fine-grained changes I'd only end up adding:
> <meta name="robots" content="noindex">
>
> which does almost exactly the same thing, for more effort.


I'm not getting the value of leaving them there but not letting them be indexed. If they're there, they should be indexed. If they're not indexed, they might as well not be there at all.

--
Rich Bowen
rbowen [at] rcbowen :: @rbowen
rbowen [at] apache


niq at apache

Mar 2, 2012, 4:21 AM

Post #15 of 23 (540 views)
Permalink
Re: [proposed] remove docs/1.3/ [In reply to]

On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 07:07:46 -0500
Rich Bowen <rbowen [at] rcbowen> wrote:

> I'm not getting the value of leaving them there but not letting them be indexed. If they're there, they should be indexed. If they're not indexed, they might as well not be there at all.

On the contrary! They're there for reference, for people who want
to find apache 1.3. If someone seeks out those docs then it makes
sense to provide them.

The point of not indexing them is to avoid thrusting them on the
majority who want documentation of a current version. They pollute
search results when you google a directive or module name, and
may confuse the punters when something has changed!

--
Nick Kew

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe [at] httpd
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help [at] httpd


rbowen at rcbowen

Mar 2, 2012, 4:29 AM

Post #16 of 23 (538 views)
Permalink
Re: [proposed] remove docs/1.3/ [In reply to]

On Mar 2, 2012, at 7:21 AM, Nick Kew wrote:

>> I'm not getting the value of leaving them there but not letting them be indexed. If they're there, they should be indexed. If they're not indexed, they might as well not be there at all.
>
> On the contrary! They're there for reference, for people who want
> to find apache 1.3. If someone seeks out those docs then it makes
> sense to provide them.
>
> The point of not indexing them is to avoid thrusting them on the
> majority who want documentation of a current version. They pollute
> search results when you google a directive or module name, and
> may confuse the punters when something has changed!


But if someone's actually looking for 1.3 docs, they won't find them.

The point of the 'rel canonical' stuff was that if someone's looking for 1.3 docs, theyd find them, but if they're looking for, say, DocumentRoot, they'd find the (at the time) 2.2 version of the file, not the 1.3 version.

But, as to what the best course of action is, I'm not at all certain now much it matters. I'd be glad to throw an entry in the robots.txt and see if anybody hollers about it. I think that the result, however, will be that someone else's mirror of the 1.3 docs will start to emerge in the search results.

--
Rich Bowen
rbowen [at] rcbowen :: @rbowen
rbowen [at] apache


niq at apache

Mar 2, 2012, 7:07 AM

Post #17 of 23 (543 views)
Permalink
Re: [proposed] remove docs/1.3/ [In reply to]

On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 07:29:26 -0500
Rich Bowen <rbowen [at] rcbowen> wrote:

> But if someone's actually looking for 1.3 docs, they won't find them.

Whyever not?

Someone looking specifically for 1.3 docs - as opposed to [don't know
what version] docs, is someone with a specific reason. Someone who'll
look at apache.org to find them.


--
Nick Kew

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe [at] httpd
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help [at] httpd


rbowen at rcbowen

Mar 2, 2012, 7:27 AM

Post #18 of 23 (539 views)
Permalink
Re: [proposed] remove docs/1.3/ [In reply to]

On Mar 2, 2012, at 10:07 AM, Nick Kew wrote:

> On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 07:29:26 -0500
> Rich Bowen <rbowen [at] rcbowen> wrote:
>
>> But if someone's actually looking for 1.3 docs, they won't find them.
>
> Whyever not?

Because The Google is the sum of all human knowledge. That which is not there, is not. ;-)

>
> Someone looking specifically for 1.3 docs - as opposed to [don't know
> what version] docs, is someone with a specific reason. Someone who'll
> look at apache.org to find them.


Fairy nuff. I'll tweak the robots.txt accordingly and we can see if anybody yells.

--
Rich Bowen
rbowen [at] rcbowen :: @rbowen
rbowen [at] apache


niq at apache

Mar 2, 2012, 7:52 AM

Post #19 of 23 (541 views)
Permalink
Re: [proposed] remove docs/1.3/ [In reply to]

On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 10:27:07 -0500
Rich Bowen <rbowen [at] rcbowen> wrote:

>
> On Mar 2, 2012, at 10:07 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 07:29:26 -0500
> > Rich Bowen <rbowen [at] rcbowen> wrote:
> >
> >> But if someone's actually looking for 1.3 docs, they won't find them.
> >
> > Whyever not?
>
> Because The Google is the sum of all human knowledge. That which is not there, is not. ;-)

Did you google that? What search term did you use?

You may be looking for a lesson in Greek logic ;)

--
Nick Kew

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe [at] httpd
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help [at] httpd


isoma at jellybaby

Mar 3, 2012, 4:07 AM

Post #20 of 23 (531 views)
Permalink
Re: [proposed] remove docs/1.3/ [In reply to]

On 2 Mar 2012, at 12:29, Rich Bowen wrote:

> But if someone's actually looking for 1.3 docs, they won't find them.

My former employer is still running 1.3.x on customers' servers, and the hyperlinks in their customer-facing documentation remain valid.

--
Tim Bannister isoma [at] jellybaby
Attachments: smime.p7s (4.29 KB)


tsnyder at gsscomputer

Mar 3, 2012, 4:15 AM

Post #21 of 23 (533 views)
Permalink
Re: [proposed] remove docs/1.3/ [In reply to]

I will be out of the office until Tuesday 6 March.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe [at] httpd
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help [at] httpd


rbowen at rcbowen

Mar 3, 2012, 5:04 PM

Post #22 of 23 (522 views)
Permalink
Re: [proposed] remove docs/1.3/ [In reply to]

On Mar 3, 2012, at 7:07 AM, Tim Bannister wrote:

> On 2 Mar 2012, at 12:29, Rich Bowen wrote:
>
>> But if someone's actually looking for 1.3 docs, they won't find them.
>
> My former employer is still running 1.3.x on customers' servers, and the hyperlinks in their customer-facing documentation remain valid.


By "find" I very specifically meant "in search engines", in the event that we forbid spidering those directories.

--
Rich Bowen
rbowen [at] rcbowen :: @rbowen
rbowen [at] apache


tsnyder at gsscomputer

Mar 3, 2012, 5:12 PM

Post #23 of 23 (521 views)
Permalink
Re: [proposed] remove docs/1.3/ [In reply to]

I will be out of the office until Tuesday 6 March.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe [at] httpd
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help [at] httpd

Apache docs RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.