Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft

[Mikael Hallendal <micke imendio com>]

25 mar 2008 kl. 08.58 skrev Murray Cumming:

Hi,

> On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 17:26 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 15:41 +0000, Martyn Russell wrote:
> > > Murray Cumming wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 13:16 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote:
> > > > > And I still believe that the official GNOME bindings deserve to  
> > > > > be in
> > > > > a
> > > > > separate section.
> > > >
> > > > I see that the site is live already. Please don't just ignore this
> > > > regression. I've mentioned it before too.
> > >
> > > Hi Murray,
> > >
> > > We are not ignoring it, it is a planned change. There are one or  
> > > two and
> > > we have had quite a few improvement requests since going live - we  
> > > will
> > > be getting to it soon.
>
> This still hasn't happened and it's still infuriating me that the page
> was broken. Why can't I just fix this page as I used to keep it
> maintained before?

Just a -1 from me regarding splitting out the official GNOME bindings.

I agree that in most cases the quality for only GTK+ is better in  
these but it's not given and GTK+ is not only for GNOME. The GNOME  
bindings include (and require) a wider set of library bindings than GTK 
+ bindings.

If you want to split the tables up, I suggest that the split is on up  
to date bindings rather than whether they are in the GNOME bindings  
package. But then again, that is pretty easy to see already.

Maybe just put a little marker on the bindings that are "official"  
GNOME bindings?

====
C++ [1]
C#
Perl [1]
...

[1] Included in the official GNOME bindings.
====

Cheers,
  Mikael Hallendal

--
Imendio AB, http://www.imendio.com