On 06 Feb 2003 16:35:12 +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:

I just wanted to inform you that I've done some minor updates to http://developer.gimp.org/. I've added some interesting links as well as a snapshot of the current GIMP API reference. The page is very simple since it was my goal to put up some content first.

Nice! And I like the idea "content first, frivolous decorations later..."

Perhaps someone wants to volunteer to maintain this little site. This would involve improving its design, updating links and setting up a few scripts that update the API reference from CVS (and perhaps provides other files out of the CVS tree like NEWS and ChangeLog). I'd also like to see the new developers FAQ to be hosted under this address.

I can provide some help for this. Given the current state of the old developers FAQ, I'd recommend removing the link or at least mentioning that it is outdated (and wrong in some cases).

Regarding the links to Bugzilla, there is an automatically generated table of links at the bottom of this page: http://www.gimp.org/devel_ver.html This could be useful for those who want to be able to limit their queries to the stable or unstable versions.

-Raphaël

P.S.: Reminder to all GIMP developers: FOSDEM takes place this week-end in Brussels. http://www.fosdem.org/

On 07 Feb 2003 13:29:07 +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:

I don't have the 1.2 docs installed at the moment. But if someone has the 1.2 API docs installed and correctly cross-linked to the gtk+ and glib docs, perhaps he/she could prepare a tarball of the whole thing (libgimp, glib and gtk docs). We could then put the reference manual for 1.2 online as well.

It would be very nice if someone could build these docs with the correct links and send a tarball to me or Sven (or even better, tell me where I can fetch the file using ftp or wget). I currently do not have the tools necessary to rebuild the docs on my own machine, so I would appreciate to get a copy from someone who can build them.

Another option for the cross-references to the glib and gtk docs would be to replace the relative links with direct links to the online versions available from developer.gnome.org (which should always have the latest 1.2.x docs):
http://developer.gnome.org/doc/API/glib/index.html http://developer.gnome.org/doc/API/gdk/index.html http://developer.gnome.org/doc/API/gtk/index.html

-Raphaël

Hi,

I have done a small test design based on the design that drc has done and also drc has helped me to make the test developers site look good with the changing of colors and images. The test site can be located here: http://devel.helloween.kicks-ass.org/

But remember that this is a test design. Now I know that Raphaël wants to do the scripts so I have a suggestion: I can do the design and Raphaël can do the scripts and the content of the site.

What do you think Raphaël?

And I would also like to thank drc with the help of my weird ideas.

Regards,

On 07 Feb 2003 20:35:20 +0100, Niklas wrote:

I have done a small test design based on the design that drc has done and also drc has helped me to make the test developers site look good with the changing of colors and images. The test site can be located here: http://devel.helloween.kicks-ass.org/

That looks nice. That design looks vaguely familiar... ;-)

I am not sure that the front page should have some kind of news, though. Having up-to-date information for the main site will be hard enough. History shows that everybody is excited at first and supplies a lot of news, but this slows down after a while and it is difficult to keep the site alive. So it would probably be better to keep the news part for the main site only. The home page of the developers' site would only have a set of links to the important sections of the site, even if this duplicates some parts of the navigation bar.

But remember that this is a test design. Now I know that Raphaël wants to do the scripts so I have a suggestion: I can do the design and Raphaël can do the scripts and the content of the site.

What do you think Raphaël?

That's fine for me. There are only a few requirements that I would like to put on the design:
- It should be clean XHTML 1.0 (or at least HTML 4.01). It looks like this is already the case.
- The page design should not include too many images or complex (D)HTML stuff. Again, it looks like this is fine already. - There should be some kind of revision control system (such as CVS) for the contents of the pages. This reduces potential problems if there is more than one webmaster for the pages. - For those editing the pages, the contents should be clearly separated from the template. This means that all source files should only contain the body of the pages (without header, footer or navigation bar) and some build system should be able to apply the template to these source files to generate the final HTML pages. (*) - The source files (under revision control) and generated files should be in different directories. Ideally, it should be possible to rebuild everything by typing "make" in the source directory. - The generated HTML files should be static: no server-side includes, PHP, Perl or other fancy stuff that would put additional requirements on the server.
- It should be possible to integrate some pages that are not using the same templates. This will be useful for the documentation pages generated by gtk-doc.

So if this is fine for you, then I would be happy to work together with you on the update of the developers' site.

And I would also like to thank drc with the help of my weird ideas.

I see that the footer of the sample page that you provided includes a reference to "The GIMP Team". I don't know how others feel about that, but I do not like to give credits on every page of the site. The GIMP itself does not include a "credits" entry at the bottom of every menu and those who really want to know who contributed to the GIMP have to locate the appropriate entry. Similary, I do not think that it is necessary to include a copyright notice and a link to a list of contributors on every page.

Besides the fact that I do not like to advertise the credits too much, I think that such a list if often biased. It is hard to keep a "fair" credits list up-to-date, whether it is for the site or for the program as we have seen in the discussions a couple of weeks ago. In many Free Software projects (programs, documentation, web sites, etc.) the list of contributors is often "historical" and those who came later or who prefer to keep a low profile and work in the background are often under-represented. I don't know if having a biased list is better than having no list at all. Maybe it is. But since I am aware of this unavoidable bias, I prefer keep the list in a place that can be found by those who are looking for it, but without advertising it on every page.

I have the same opinion for the main site, by the way. There is a list of people on http://www.gimp.org/the_gimp_org_about.html - It is incredibly inaccurate (more than half of the people mentioned there have not contributed a single line of code in the last year) but it is there for historical reasons. It is not advertised from the other pages. I hope that the new design will not put too much emphasis on the credits list or on a copyright notice.

-Raphaël

(*) The source files (HTML or XML) may contain some special meta tags or special comments that are recognized by the script that builds the final HTML pages and can be used to set some parameters. For example, that would be useful if we want to highlight the current section in the navigation bar or if some pages should use a slightly different template. I don't know if we really need such parameters in the source files, but this could be useful.

On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 01:37:37PM +0100, Raphaël Quinet wrote:

I have done a small test design based on the design that drc has done and also drc has helped me to make the test developers site look good with the changing of colors and images. The test site can be located here: http://devel.helloween.kicks-ass.org/

That looks nice. That design looks vaguely familiar... ;-)

It's broken on Netscape 4.7 (disabling Style Sheets helps, but it looks rather ugly then). There is text behind the image etc. But I guess it's nice if displayed correctly.

HTH! Tino.

PS: Note that JavaScript and Style Sheets are linked together in Netscape - if you disable JavaScript, Style Sheets are also disabled.

On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 03:37:26PM +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:

It's broken on Netscape 4.7 (disabling Style Sheets helps, but it looks rather ugly then). There is text behind the image etc. But I guess it's nice if displayed correctly.

I don't think we have to care about browsers as obsolete and known-to-be-broken as Netscape 4.7.

The best thing one can do with NN 4.x is [IMHO] to (a) detect it with PHP or whatever and don't include style sheets, or include a different one -- this is prohibited IIUC (b) use some dirty trick
http://centricle.com/ref/css/filters/ to make it see no/other/only part of the style sheet, e.g. @import url("bigstyle.css")

Since people still use NN 4.x, they should be able to display the pages in some readable (not nice) form, so I suggest hiding CSS for NN 4.x with @import.

Yeti

On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 16:16:56 +0100, "David Necas (Yeti)" wrote:

On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 03:37:26PM +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:

It's broken on Netscape 4.7 (disabling Style Sheets helps, but it looks rather ugly then). There is text behind the image etc. But I guess it's nice if displayed correctly.

I don't think we have to care about browsers as obsolete and known-to-be-broken as Netscape 4.7.

As someone who still has to use Netscape 4.x from time to time (old computers, not enough memory to run newer browsers), I would like to be able to support Netscape 4.x as long as it does not add too many constraints on the design.

The best thing one can do with NN 4.x is [IMHO] to (a) detect it with PHP or whatever and don't include style sheets, or include a different one -- this is prohibited IIUC

It is not prohibited, but I would like to avoid that if possible. This trick would require dynamic pages. This would not only increase the load on the server, but this would also prevent the pages from being cached in proxies. I prefer static pages.

(b) use some dirty trick
http://centricle.com/ref/css/filters/ to make it see no/other/only part of the style sheet, e.g. @import url("bigstyle.css")

I have used a similar trick in some pages that I have designed, and it works quite well. I suggest using that.

Also, Netscape 4.x does not support the CSS borders correctly, but there are ways around that. I am convinced that it is possible to design the pages is such a way that they is not completely broken in Netscape 4.x. But I would like to focus first on the way the pages will be created (building scripts, directory structure, etc.).

Since people still use NN 4.x, they should be able to display the pages in some readable (not nice) form, so I suggest hiding CSS for NN 4.x with @import.

I agree. There are still a number of GIMP users who are relying on this old browser, so we should try to suppport it as long as possible. The pages don't have to look nice, but they should at least be readable and they should not "look broken".

-Raphaël

On 2003-02-10 at 1710.28 +0100, Rapha?l Quinet typed this:

On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 16:16:56 +0100, "David Necas (Yeti)" wrote:

As someone who still has to use Netscape 4.x from time to time (old computers, not enough memory to run newer browsers), I would like to be able to support Netscape 4.x as long as it does not add too many constraints on the design.

The best thing one can do with NN 4.x is [IMHO] to (a) detect it with PHP or whatever and don't include style sheets, or include a different one -- this is prohibited IIUC

It is not prohibited, but I would like to avoid that if possible. This trick would require dynamic pages. This would not only increase the load on the server, but this would also prevent the pages from being cached in proxies. I prefer static pages.

good preference. the page was designed so as to have low impact on the server on purpose. as a rule even. wilber can't take it.

(b) use some dirty trick
http://centricle.com/ref/css/filters/ to make it see no/other/only part of the style sheet, e.g. @import url("bigstyle.css")

i read of a rather elegant solution. apparently Netscape refuses to read the tag if it contains the media attribute. so you can set it up this way:

and netscape will happily skip the second stylesheet.

http://www.w3.org/Style/Examples/007/maps.html (the last paragraph)

carol

On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 11:31:42AM -0500, Carol Spears wrote:

i read of a rather elegant solution. apparently Netscape refuses to read the tag if it contains the media attribute. so you can set it up this way:

with quotes please

and netscape will happily skip the second stylesheet.

OK, and when one wants everything in one CSS file, he/she can make use of NN's inability to parse comments (so-called Caio's Hack), this is probably even better solution:

/*/*/ some stuff NN won't see
/* */

Yeti

On 2003-02-10 at 1337.37 +0100, Rapha?l Quinet typed this:

I see that the footer of the sample page that you provided includes a reference to "The GIMP Team". I don't know how others feel about that, but I do not like to give credits on every page of the site. The GIMP itself does not include a "credits" entry at the bottom of every menu and those who really want to know who contributed to the GIMP have to locate the appropriate entry. Similary, I do not think that it is necessary to include a copyright notice and a link to a list of contributors on every page.

well, there is a little history to that inclusion. a commercial site stole the design. the designer had serious issues. i guess that the whole footer was developed that time, and was made like it is more for balance on the page.

the reason cited for the theft was that they found the layout on a googlable web page (the old hurl site) and that it wasn't copyrighted.

as a user, i would see the list of names of those involved with gimp, and all i wanted was to be included as well.

i searched and searched for photos and more information, which in itself might be a good reason not to put lists of people on any of the sites ...

as the person who wrote team.html, it is hard and unsavory to come up with titles and such. if this page disappears, i wouldn't mind. i would however like my mom to see my name there before it goes. (i am proud of what is there ...)

Besides the fact that I do not like to advertise the credits too much, I think that such a list if often biased. It is hard to keep a "fair" credits list up-to-date, whether it is for the site or for the program as we have seen in the discussions a couple of weeks ago. In many Free Software projects (programs, documentation, web sites, etc.) the list of contributors is often "historical" and those who came later or who prefer to keep a low profile and work in the background are often under-represented. I don't know if having a biased list is better than having no list at all. Maybe it is. But since I am aware of this unavoidable bias, I prefer keep the list in a place that can be found by those who are looking for it, but without advertising it on every page.

i like on the current site how someone was included because he bought a beer for someone (the author of this letter excluded) a beer.

i have carefully protected this site from that sort of thing. so, a little credit there maybe ....

I have the same opinion for the main site, by the way. There is a list of people on http://www.gimp.org/the_gimp_org_about.html - It is incredibly inaccurate (more than half of the people mentioned there have not contributed a single line of code in the last year) but it is there for historical reasons. It is not advertised from the other pages. I hope that the new design will not put too much emphasis on the credits list or on a copyright notice.

only what is needed. lots of people need to be kept happy. others might need to be kept at arms length. the copyright seems to fix both potential problems nicely. other solutions will be gladly considered.

carol

Hi,

On Mon, 2003-02-10 at 13:37, Raphaël Quinet wrote:

That looks nice. That design looks vaguely familiar... ;-)

It should look familiar.....I think you might know the reason to why it should look familiar.

I am not sure that the front page should have some kind of news, though. Having up-to-date information for the main site will be hard enough. History shows that everybody is excited at first and supplies a lot of news, but this slows down after a while and it is difficult to keep the site alive. So it would probably be better to keep the news part for the main site only. The home page of the developers' site would only have a set of links to the important sections of the site, even if this duplicates some parts of the navigation bar.

Yes, but what should be here instead? Some info about what developer.gimp.org is?

That's fine for me. There are only a few requirements that I would like to put on the design:
- It should be clean XHTML 1.0 (or at least HTML 4.01). It looks like this is already the case.
- The page design should not include too many images or complex (D)HTML stuff. Again, it looks like this is fine already. - There should be some kind of revision control system (such as CVS) for the contents of the pages. This reduces potential problems if there is more than one webmaster for the pages. - For those editing the pages, the contents should be clearly separated from the template. This means that all source files should only contain the body of the pages (without header, footer or navigation bar) and some build system should be able to apply the template to these source files to generate the final HTML pages. (*) - The source files (under revision control) and generated files should be in different directories. Ideally, it should be possible to rebuild everything by typing "make" in the source directory. - The generated HTML files should be static: no server-side includes, PHP, Perl or other fancy stuff that would put additional requirements on the server.
- It should be possible to integrate some pages that are not using the same templates. This will be useful for the documentation pages generated by gtk-doc.

All this is no problem at all. The big problem in this case would be the CVS stuff for the developer.gimp.org, I don't have knowledge enough to create a CVS-server for the site. Any ideas?

So if this is fine for you, then I would be happy to work together with you on the update of the developers' site.

That is great, I would be more then happy to work with the design.

Regards,

On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 12:26:47 -0500, Carol Spears wrote:

On 2003-02-10 at 1337.37 +0100, Rapha?l Quinet typed this:

I see that the footer of the sample page that you provided includes a reference to "The GIMP Team". I don't know how others feel about that, but I do not like to give credits on every page of the site. The GIMP itself does not include a "credits" entry at the bottom of every menu and those who really want to know who contributed to the GIMP have to locate the appropriate entry. Similary, I do not think that it is necessary to include a copyright notice and a link to a list of contributors on every page.

well, there is a little history to that inclusion. a commercial site stole the design. the designer had serious issues. i guess that the whole footer was developed that time, and was made like it is more for balance on the page.

the reason cited for the theft was that they found the layout on a googlable web page (the old hurl site) and that it wasn't copyrighted.

Obviously, the thief who claimed that does not know much about the copyright laws (regardless of the country he/she is living in), or is trying to ignore them on purpose. IANAL, but it is not necessary to add a visible copyright message. Since several years now, most countries in the world have adopted laws that make every published work copyrighted by default, unless the author explicitely states that the work is in the public domain. So copying anything without the author's consent is illegal.

Besides, why should the copyright notice be visible? If the main goal is to prevent someone from copying the HTML code or the layout of the pages, it would be enough to add a statement in a HTML comment. Or if it has to be visible on the page, then I would go for "font-size:1px".

as a user, i would see the list of names of those involved with gimp, and all i wanted was to be included as well.

i searched and searched for photos and more information, which in itself might be a good reason not to put lists of people on any of the sites ...

Heh. ;-) Well, I certainly understand that it is nice to be part of that list. However, such lists are often biased. Not only because they often keep some old contributors longer than necessary (nobody dares removing them from the list or creating a "past contributors" section) but also because some contributors do not get the credits that they would deserve. In some other project, I was surprised to see that some people were not credited altough they did a lot more work than some of those who were included in the credits for that project. It turns out that those guys were usually keeping a low profile and they never asked to be included in the credits. One might think that they were simply too shy, but this is probably a cultural thing as well (most of these people were from [Far-]Eastern countries).

Anyway, it is probably unavoidable to have a list of contributors somewhere. I am not really against that, but I would not like to advertise it too much. As I wrote in my previous message, I do not think that it is necessary to include a link on every page.

as the person who wrote team.html, it is hard and unsavory to come up with titles and such. if this page disappears, i wouldn't mind. i would however like my mom to see my name there before it goes. (i am proud of what is there ...)

Hey, wait... I was talking about developer.gimp.org, not about the new design for the main site. It looks like you are talking about the latter. I didn't know that you had written a "team.html" for the new site. I should have checked first, sorry.

[Later...] Ah, now I see it (on mmmaybe.g.o). Well, my name is not there, so this is a _proof_ that these lists _are_ biased! ;-) Errr... No, seriously, this list is fine. Don't add my name there. But I am surprised to see a "Web Team", though. Probably something that was not discussed on the mailing list, again... ;-) Regarding the "Core Team", you could simply include the list from the AUTHORS file (current CVS). Or maybe the results from the script that I started writing a few weeks ago. If I ever get a chance to finish it. I would like to be able to include a list of those who have contributed something through Bugzilla. This is a bit tricky.

[...] I prefer keep the list in a place that can be found by those who are looking for it, but without advertising it on every page.

i like on the current site how someone was included because he bought a beer for someone (the author of this letter excluded) a beer.

I think that I am a bit lost, here. I do not understand that reference. Are you refering to the current www.gimp.org site, to the developers' site or to mmmaybe.g.o? Maybe I am blind or just too thick? ;-)

i have carefully protected this site from that sort of thing. so, a little credit there maybe ....

Errr... Sure. Errr... Do you like Belgian beers? I have a nice collection of trappist beers at home. ;-)

I have the same opinion for the main site, by the way. There is a list of people on http://www.gimp.org/the_gimp_org_about.html - It is incredibly inaccurate (more than half of the people mentioned there have not contributed a single line of code in the last year) but it is there for historical reasons. It is not advertised from the other pages. I hope that the new design will not put too much emphasis on the credits list or on a copyright notice.

only what is needed. lots of people need to be kept happy. others might need to be kept at arms length. the copyright seems to fix both potential problems nicely. other solutions will be gladly considered.

Now, if we talk about the main site, this is different. I have less to say there because I have been unfortunately excluded from the "web team" although I have always been on the gimp-web mailing list . But I still think that having a prominent link on every page is a bit excessive. Those who want to find who did what could find this information easily if it was located in a section "About this site" as a sub-section of "About The GIMP".

-Raphaël

P.S.: This message has to be read with the tongue firmly planted in the cheek. Don't take this too seriously. :-)

On 10 Feb 2003 18:39:09 +0100, Niklas wrote:

On Mon, 2003-02-10 at 13:37, Raphaël Quinet wrote:

I am not sure that the front page should have some kind of news, though. [...] The home page of the developers' site would only have a set of links to the important sections of the site, even if this duplicates some parts of the navigation bar.

Yes, but what should be here instead? Some info about what developer.gimp.org is?

Yes, something like that. And maybe duplicate some links from the navigation bar, with some additional explanations about what you can find on those pages.

That's fine for me. There are only a few requirements that I would like to put on the design:

[...]

All this is no problem at all. The big problem in this case would be the CVS stuff for the developer.gimp.org, I don't have knowledge enough to create a CVS-server for the site. Any ideas?

You don't have to worry about that. If we do not need remote CVS access, we can simply set up a local repository on wilber (the box that runs the web server). If you do not have an account on that machine, then we can use a remote CVS server. For example, we could apply for the creation of a new module on cvs.gnome.org. That should be possible.

That is great, I would be more then happy to work with the design.

You are welcome!

I think that we should move that discussion to the gimp-web list, if it is still working (it has been silent for a bit more than a year). As a test, I have posted this message to both lists and I will see if it gets through. If it does, then I suggest that we continue the discussion there.

-Raphaël

On 2003-02-10 at 2017.52 +0100, Rapha?l Quinet typed this:

On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 12:26:47 -0500, Carol Spears wrote:

On 2003-02-10 at 1337.37 +0100, Rapha?l Quinet typed this:

I see that the footer of the sample page that you provided includes a reference to "The GIMP Team". I don't know how others feel about that, but I do not like to give credits on every page of the site. The GIMP itself does not include a "credits" entry at the bottom of every menu and those who really want to know who contributed to the GIMP have to locate the appropriate entry. Similary, I do not think that it is necessary to include a copyright notice and a link to a list of contributors on every page.

well, there is a little history to that inclusion. a commercial site stole the design. the designer had serious issues. i guess that the whole footer was developed that time, and was made like it is more for balance on the page.

the reason cited for the theft was that they found the layout on a googlable web page (the old hurl site) and that it wasn't copyrighted.

Obviously, the thief who claimed that does not know much about the copyright laws (regardless of the country he/she is living in), or is trying to ignore them on purpose. IANAL, but it is not necessary to add a visible copyright message. Since several years now, most countries in the world have adopted laws that make every published work copyrighted by default, unless the author explicitely states that the work is in the public domain. So copying anything without the author's consent is illegal.

it was a quick solution that worked at the moment. probably it would be best to ask gnu.org what to do and just do that.

Besides, why should the copyright notice be visible? If the main goal is to prevent someone from copying the HTML code or the layout of the pages, it would be enough to add a statement in a HTML comment. Or if it has to be visible on the page, then I would go for "font-size:1px".

i want whatever causes the least amount of noise. and looks the most tasteful. :)

as a user, i would see the list of names of those involved with gimp, and all i wanted was to be included as well.

i searched and searched for photos and more information, which in itself might be a good reason not to put lists of people on any of the sites ...

Heh. ;-) Well, I certainly understand that it is nice to be part of that list. However, such lists are often biased. Not only because they often keep some old contributors longer than necessary (nobody dares removing them from the list or creating a "past contributors" section) but also because some contributors do not get the credits that they would deserve. In some other project, I was surprised to see that some people were not credited altough they did a lot more work than some of those who were included in the credits for that project. It turns out that those guys were usually keeping a low profile and they never asked to be included in the credits. One might think that they were simply too shy, but this is probably a cultural thing as well (most of these people were from [Far-]Eastern countries).

tis an interesting thing. probably the very best thing to do is to keep using other gimp sites for the "fan stuff". keep most of the personalities off from the main site. actually, the coolness of the developers does interfer with their work on gimp, some. people would like to hang and chat with them. it might still be better to make all things gimp look mean and scary! i am open to changes like this.

Anyway, it is probably unavoidable to have a list of contributors somewhere. I am not really against that, but I would not like to advertise it too much. As I wrote in my previous message, I do not think that it is necessary to include a link on every page.

as the person who wrote team.html, it is hard and unsavory to come up with titles and such. if this page disappears, i wouldn't mind. i would however like my mom to see my name there before it goes. (i am proud of what is there ...)

Hey, wait... I was talking about developer.gimp.org, not about the new design for the main site. It looks like you are talking about the latter. I didn't know that you had written a "team.html" for the new site. I should have checked first, sorry.

if you don't mind the design of scizzos, there will be a problem keeping the two sites separate. dgo, wgo-1.0, wgo-1.2, wgo-1.4, mgo is unstable and right now is wgo-1.2, wgo is stable and currently is wgo-1.0. does that make sense? and is it useful?

[Later...] Ah, now I see it (on mmmaybe.g.o). Well, my name is not there, so this is a _proof_ that these lists _are_ biased! ;-) Errr... No, seriously, this list is fine. Don't add my name there. But I am surprised to see a "Web Team", though. Probably something that was not discussed on the mailing list, again... ;-) Regarding the "Core Team", you could simply include the list from the AUTHORS file (current CVS). Or maybe the results from the script that I started writing a few weeks ago. If I ever get a chance to finish it. I would like to be able to include a list of those who have contributed something through Bugzilla. This is a bit tricky.

the gimp-web list!

that bastard.

they don't answer. they need help finding gug. and i wish gug were working for them.

my reason for the gimp-web list was solely to get my hero branko to move his good ideas somewhere else for discussion. it really all came from a nice little chat i had with mitch about socks being lost in a filter somewhere ....

i tried to find help there. i tried to excite them into helping. they wanted gug.

raphael, i know you want to chat about the web there. but i hate them. sorry. i need to deal with my hate. gah.

[...] I prefer keep the list in a place that can be found by those who are looking for it, but without advertising it on every page.

i like on the current site how someone was included because he bought a beer for someone (the author of this letter excluded) a beer.

I think that I am a bit lost, here. I do not understand that reference. Are you refering to the current www.gimp.org site, to the developers' site or to mmmaybe.g.o? Maybe I am blind or just too thick? ;-)

wgo. wgo-1.0. hahaha! the mention of the beer is right before your name raphael!! http://www.gimp.org/the_gimp_org_about.html

nothing like that on any of the new pages!! whee!

i have carefully protected this site from that sort of thing. so, a little credit there maybe ....

Errr... Sure. Errr... Do you like Belgian beers? I have a nice collection of trappist beers at home. ;-)

so far, i like hard cider and alt beer. but mostly, i don't like to sleep, so i don't drink them. sorry. i can be bought with little bugzilla information gathering scripties though ...

I have the same opinion for the main site, by the way. There is a list of people on http://www.gimp.org/the_gimp_org_about.html - It is incredibly inaccurate (more than half of the people mentioned there have not contributed a single line of code in the last year) but it is there for historical reasons. It is not advertised from the other pages. I hope that the new design will not put too much emphasis on the credits list or on a copyright notice.

only what is needed. lots of people need to be kept happy. others might need to be kept at arms length. the copyright seems to fix both potential problems nicely. other solutions will be gladly considered.

Now, if we talk about the main site, this is different. I have less to say there because I have been unfortunately excluded from the "web team" although I have always been on the gimp-web mailing list . But I still think that having a prominent link on every page is a bit excessive. Those who want to find who did what could find this information easily if it was located in a section "About this site" as a sub-section of "About The GIMP".

-Rapha?l

P.S.: This message has to be read with the tongue firmly planted in the cheek. Don't take this too seriously. :-)

okay, maybe i don't really hate the gimp-web list then ....

carol

On 10 Feb 2003, at 15:34, Carol Spears wrote:

On 2003-02-10 at 2017.52 +0100, Rapha?l Quinet typed this:

On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 12:26:47 -0500, Carol Spears

[copyright notices on every page]

well, there is a little history to that inclusion. a commercial site stole the design. the designer had serious issues. i guess that the whole footer was developed that time, and was made like it is more for balance on the page.

the reason cited for the theft was that they found the layout on a googlable web page (the old hurl site) and that it wasn't copyrighted.

Obviously, the thief who claimed that does not know much about the copyright laws (regardless of the country he/she is living in), or is trying to ignore them on purpose. IANAL, but it is not necessary to add a visible copyright message. Since several years now, most countries in the world have adopted laws that make every published work copyrighted by default, unless the author explicitely states that the work is in the public domain. So copying anything without the author's consent is illegal.

it was a quick solution that worked at the moment. probably it would be best to ask gnu.org what to do and just do that.

Usually, from what I have heard from other web masters, threatening to get a lawyer involved and/or to go to the hosting provider helps. Depends a bit on the country where the infringer lives, though (thief is a word reserved for those who take away property).

If that does not help, actually writing the host provider may help, especially in countries with repressive copyright regimes, such as the US, or with extreme 'consumer protection' laws, such as Germany.

IANAL, of course.

On 10-Feb-2003, Tino Schwarze wrote:

It's broken on Netscape 4.7 (disabling Style Sheets helps, but it looks rather ugly then). There is text behind the image etc. But I guess it's nice if displayed correctly.

Netscape 4.x is known to be broken with alot of valid css, so therefore, please upgrade to something gecko based.

On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 20:27:10 +0100, Raphaël Quinet wrote:

On 10 Feb 2003 18:39:09 +0100, Niklas wrote:

[...] http://devel.helloween.kicks-ass.org/ [...snip!...]

I think that we should move that discussion to the gimp-web list, if it is still working (it has been silent for a bit more than a year). As a test, I have posted this message to both lists and I will see if it gets through. If it does, then I suggest that we continue the discussion there.

After posting that message, I realized that I had been subscribed to the gimp-web list using a different address. As a result, my message was sent to the moderator for approval. Given the amount of spam that has landed in the approval bin during last year, I do not expect my message to be approved anytime soon... (Hi Carol! ;-)) Hopefully, this one will appear on the gimp-web list, because I have fixed my subscription in the meantime.

Anyway, I have a question about the design that you (Niklas) are proposing: did you use a set of scripts to add the template (header, footer, menu) around the page contents, or is every page created by hand? Is the editing done at the HTML level, or do you use some tools to generate all or parts of the page from a different markup language or from a simpler version of the HTML code?

-Raphaël

P.S.: I set the "Reply-To:" to the gimp-web list. This should work now.

Hi,

On Wed, 2003-02-12 at 19:15, Raphaël Quinet wrote:

Anyway, I have a question about the design that you (Niklas) are proposing: did you use a set of scripts to add the template (header, footer, menu) around the page contents, or is every page created by hand?

The page is created by hand. And I am trying to make some changes in the include files to make it easier to validate and also easier to understand. (I hope). So there will be a temp.html file for you to look at.

Is the editing done at the HTML level, or do you use some tools to generate all or parts of the page from a different markup language or from a simpler version of the HTML code?

It is all HTML but this is also XHTML strict so the content of the site uses and for the main content, the rest of the structures are in the css file. So this is more XHTML then HTML. This makes the site beutiful to work with. :)

This is a title

Here we have some info

That is all sort of. But then again this depends a lot on what you want the file to include.

Regards,