Re: GO Website

>From Mark Gilbert on Wednesday, 07 July, 2004:
>[resend, used wrong address]
>On Wed, 2004-07-07 at 19:35, Mark Gilbert wrote:
>> > Any proposals?
>> Er, see above.
>Oh, I did forgot one other thing.  When making design decisions and
>whatnot, while nobody has to feel constrained to what's already on
> (or dgo, for the dev content), _all else being equal_, it
>doesn't hurt to be consistent with GNOME.  This is, after all, GNOME
>Office, not just GO (as someone wisely pointed out on irc).  This
>doesn't mean we need to match precisely by any means, just something to
>keep in mind [so no, a dark gothic decor would probably not be
>considered consistent with GNOME (-: ]
>Just a little food for thought, food that doesnt matter as much as
>getting real material really in cvs, for real.

FWIW, there is real code in CVS:

It uses XHTML1.0 strict with a couple of stylesheets and SSI (for
  maintainability without implementing it client-side).

Which brings up an important point; to be consistent with GNOME's site,
  all new stuff should be valid XHTML, encoded with UTF-8 (though I
  don't think it *has* to be *strict* XHTML).  Be wary of .xml for files.
  While it's the Right Way to Do XHTML1.1, That Damn Browser doesn't like
  it and only spews the XML tree.


Joseph===============================================trelane digitasaru net
      Graduate Student in Physics, Freelance Free Software Developer

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]