El dl 07 de 08 del 2006 a les 15:54 +0200, en/na Gergely Nagy va escriure:
I suggested the wgo/apps/appname URL instead of wgo/projects/appname
I think at this point we agree that we are talking about applications/products/software and not about projects/teams/people for this specific case. We need to agree on THE word, or have no word (wgo/evolution).
the URL www.gnome.org/evolution came up in some emails. Can you guess what it means?
If you were looking for info about Evolution you probably will know. If
you don't have a clue what Evolution is, /app/evolution won't give you
much more info ("it is an application" - "great, but almost everything
in gnome are apps, so what").
Anyway, you can always have wgo/evolution redirected to
wgo/whatever/evolution so everybody is happy, as has been pointed
before. And anyway, I have no strong opinions about this and whatever
you agree will be fine.
Gezim and Jeff: controlled duplication of information is not a bad thing.
Simon has some interesting ideas about DOAP integration.
Jeff: projects.gnome.org is not just an implementation detail, it
A suggestion: let's get the wgo/projects vs projects.go discussion out of the way. Anyway we are not going to touch anything on this subdirectory/subdomain in the current release. I don't think either option conditions the discussion of wgo in any case.
We'd be crucified it those just disappeared until the next web release :)
If we keep wgo/projects the CMS needs to deal with this. If we create projects.go we need to keep redirects from the current URLs. No project website disappears in any case. Another reason to keep this out of the discussion now.
will just get some people offended (like Claus said)...
I still don't see why it is us wgo maintainers offending people. It is not us who decide if you are in the GNOME release or not, if you are hosted in the GNOME servers or not, if you have a product in bugzilla or not, if your software is unstable or stable. The wgo maintainers decide at most if your product is interesting enough to create ourselves your product page and perhaps link it from other pages apart from the full list. But we choose from the list of products filtered by the criteria above. However...
"this is the software we consider useful for our users, and it is here to provide good starting points to discover them, and we maintain this info in several languages so a lot of people can access them"
... this is a cool approach. At the end we will apply the same filters described above and we don't need to say "official" when the Foundation hasn't found still a way to define GNOME certified software.
Quim, and Gazim was it? "Not scrolling" is soo overrated. Screen sizes
Yes, yes, but you know what I mean. http://google.com aims to fit in one page. http://www.yahoo.com/ don't. Both offer a myriad of services but they have different homepage strategies. We need to decide which extreme we want to approach, and I'm more for the minimalistic approach. It's more GNOMEy. If then I have to scroll with a 770, fine.
To recap my view about the app pages' added values:
Agreed. We need a wiki page summarizing what is a page of these.
I would also like to mention, that Jeff's project pages are (most probably) different from the project management pages that we are outlining for projects.gnome.org. Makes me wonder even more :)
Another very good reason to leave this discussion for later, when the revamped wgo is settled down and, eventually, released. -- Quim Gil /// http://desdeamericaconamor.org | http://guadec.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Això és una part d'un missatge, signada digitalment