Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, Olav Vitters wrote:

On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 02:30:14PM +0000, Martyn Russell wrote:
 * outdated versions

You disagree? It might not make sense to list unsupported versions here
I agree, but we should definitely list older versions.

No, I mean that it doesn't show e.g. 2.12. Don't mind about older
 * under API, perhaps s/Library/Component/ or something?

I prefer Library, since they are libraries.

Shouldn't Library be used for the collection of API docs? IMO gtk+ has
e.g. an API reference. The combination of all that stuff could be called
a library. already links to library.g.o for API docs, it also redirects
faq and tutorial2.0 accesses to library.g.o now.

we still have a static version of the tutorial1.2 there though, because
it's not provided by library.g.o.

what is most unfortunate is that library.g.o only has glib development
docs, but not gtk development docs. having development docs readily
available is fairly important to talk about new stuff and get reviewers
interest. (building those can easily be automated via buildign the
gtk+.module jhbuild module.)



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