Re: [Fwd: GnomeWeb 2.18 goals]

[Joachim Noreiko <jnoreiko yahoo com>]

--- Jeff Waugh <jdub perkypants org> wrote:

> <quote who="Joachim Noreiko">
> 
> > > Those ideas never needed to be in opposition,
> but were pushed that way.
> > > They are not mutually exclusive.
> > 
> > Fair enough.  But then what's your objection?
> Using the projects.g.o
> > subdomain?
> 
> Yes. It's unnecessary.
> 
> > > What's wrong with www.gnomesupport.org? There's
> no reason it can't
> > > integrate with the new site design,
> implementation, infrastructure, or
> > > all of the above.
> > 
> > I think it's confusing to pop out of the gnome.org
> family of URLs.
> 
> For whom? Most people don't give a crap about URLs.
> They're strings of
> meaningless crap. Phishing is a testament to that.
> 
> > Surely a completely different domain is even worse
> than a subdomain? 
> 
> The content already exists there, working URLs, etc.
> Why move it? Making it
> look, feel and work in a more integrated fashion is
> definitely worthwhile.
> Shifting it wholesale to make the URL pretty is not.

Work on the new gnome web is progressing at a glacial
pace (we began over 6 months ago, it may be another 6
before there are any visitor-visible changes).
We're doing this so we have time to properly plan
things, so everybody concerned can get a say, and so
we get it right.
If there are general reasons to not use subdomains,
then let's hear them.
If you have comments on the proposed wgo structure and
the wider gnome web structure, then we can take them
on board -- it all only exists on paper for now.

I take your point that having a subdomain such as
support.g.o for a mere stub of a page that points
elsewhere isn't brilliant. We need to rethink this.
On the other hand, I think wgo/projects should be
moved out.

As I see it, the point is to have a fairly slim wgo
site, which does specific things and points visitors
to other sites for the rest. If something isn't part
of the new wgo, then it's in a subdomain so it doesn't
have a wgo url. If using subdomains to accomplish this
separation is bad, then we need alternatives. We
could, I suppose, just write down on a piece of paper
which subfolders of wgo are 'core wgo' and which
aren't. As you say, URLs don't get noticed, so it's
mostly for our benefit. I could go with that, but
whoever guards the piece of paper needs a special hat
;)

As for www.gnomesupport.org, it's a rubbish url. Why
doesn't it sit with gnome.org? Who knows. (It's just
like the documentation project, we're trawling through
the ruins of a lost civilization.)
But the current endeavour to revamp all of the gnome
web gives us a chance to fix all these funny legacy
issues and begin with a clean slate.

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com