From: Chuck E. <ec...@mi...> - 2001-02-14 19:53:27
|
If anyone is interested, our website at http://webware.sourceforge.net/, could use an overhaul. I like the look of http://www.mozilla.org. I would like to see popular links in a sidebar. If anyone would be interested in taking a shot at this for the 0.5 release at the end of this month, please feel free to drop me a line. -Chuck |
From: Terrel S. <tsh...@tr...> - 2001-02-14 20:20:09
|
Chuck Esterbrook wrote: > If anyone is interested, our website at http://webware.sourceforge.net/, > could use an overhaul. > > I like the look of http://www.mozilla.org. I would like to see popular > links in a sidebar. > > If anyone would be interested in taking a shot at this for the 0.5 release > at the end of this month, please feel free to drop me a line. Can we use webware to host it? ;-) |
From: Chuck E. <ec...@mi...> - 2001-02-14 20:43:07
|
At 11:25 AM 2/14/2001 -0800, Terrel Shumway wrote: >Chuck Esterbrook wrote: > > > If anyone is interested, our website at http://webware.sourceforge.net/, > > could use an overhaul. > > > > I like the look of http://www.mozilla.org. I would like to see popular > > links in a sidebar. > > > > If anyone would be interested in taking a shot at this for the 0.5 release > > at the end of this month, please feel free to drop me a line. > >Can we use webware to host it? ;-) I don't know that we can run Webware at SourceForge, except maybe through OneShot.cgi or WebKit.cgi (bleck). Jay found a service provider for which it looks like you can control Apache, and therefore use mod_webkit. And I'm trying to reach the owner of webware.org to see if we can obtain it. If everything works out, we'll have a Webware-driven webware.org site. But in the mean time, our static page needs a fresh look. -Chuck |
From: Terrel S. <tsh...@tr...> - 2001-02-14 22:02:04
|
Chuck Esterbrook wrote: > At 11:25 AM 2/14/2001 -0800, Terrel Shumway wrote: > >Chuck Esterbrook wrote: > > > > > If anyone is interested, our website at http://webware.sourceforge.net/, > > > could use an overhaul. > > > > > > I like the look of http://www.mozilla.org. I would like to see popular > > > links in a sidebar. > mozilla.org is pretty static. One way to deploy is to use Webware to create the site, and suck up all the pages into a tarball and publish. A few dynamic pages could be run with OneShot.cgi > > Jay found a service provider for which it looks like you can control > Apache, and therefore use mod_webkit. That sounds like a very liberal hosting provider. I am interested. > And I'm trying to reach the owner of > webware.org to see if we can obtain it. > python-webware.org and webware-python.org are available, and perhaps are better names anyway. webware.org seems pretty generic (not python-specific). (webware4python.org is also available, but it is pretty lame.) > If everything works out, we'll have a Webware-driven webware.org site. > See http://www.transafari.com/webware/ for a blatant rip-off. Mozilla.org really does have a good organization. |
From: Tom S. <tom...@li...> - 2001-02-15 02:38:50
|
Terrel Shumway wrote: > > Chuck Esterbrook wrote: > > > At 11:25 AM 2/14/2001 -0800, Terrel Shumway wrote: > > >Chuck Esterbrook wrote: > > > > > > > If anyone is interested, our website at http://webware.sourceforge.net/, > > > > could use an overhaul. > > > > > > > > I like the look of http://www.mozilla.org. I would like to see popular > > > > links in a sidebar. > > > > mozilla.org is pretty static. One way to deploy is to use Webware to > create the site, and suck up all the pages into a tarball and publish. > A few dynamic pages could be run with OneShot.cgi > > > > > Jay found a service provider for which it looks like you can control > > Apache, and therefore use mod_webkit. > > That sounds like a very liberal hosting provider. I am interested. > > > And I'm trying to reach the owner of > > webware.org to see if we can obtain it. > > > > python-webware.org and webware-python.org are available, > and perhaps are better names anyway. webware.org seems > pretty generic (not python-specific). (webware4python.org > is also available, but it is pretty lame.) > > > If everything works out, we'll have a Webware-driven webware.org site. > > > > See http://www.transafari.com/webware/ for a blatant rip-off. Mozilla.org > really does have a good organization. looks nice (if you like the mozilla look ;-)) try 1 pixel borders (not this big black ones) with smaller cellspacings and cellpaddings It will look much more distinguished.. just my 2 cents -- Tom Schwaller http://www.linux-community.de |
From: Terrel S. <tsh...@tr...> - 2001-02-15 05:58:24
|
Tom Schwaller wrote: > Terrel Shumway wrote: > > > > See http://www.transafari.com/webware/ for a blatant rip-off. Mozilla.org > > really does have a good organization. > > looks nice (if you like the mozilla look ;-)) > try 1 pixel borders (not this big black ones) with > smaller cellspacings and cellpaddings > > It will look much more distinguished.. > > just my 2 cents > Thank you. I too think the heavy black borders are a little dramatic, but you cannot say that they don't make an impression. Chuck said he like mozilla.org, so I copied it: a ten minute excursion with the Gimp (an experienced Gimp user would have done a better job in two) and twenty minutes with vi. BTW: I am neither an Artist nor a Lawyer. I would like to break it into pieces and use Webware at least as a generator for the fairly static pages. After separating content from presentation, we can go back and talk about style. As far as the dynamic pieces go, many of the tools at mozilla.org are already deployed at sourceforge. We can just link to the appropriate pages. --Terrel |
From: Tom S. <tom...@li...> - 2001-02-15 19:07:55
|
Terrel Shumway wrote: > > Tom Schwaller wrote: > > > Terrel Shumway wrote: > > > > > > See http://www.transafari.com/webware/ for a blatant rip-off. Mozilla.org > > > really does have a good organization. > > > > looks nice (if you like the mozilla look ;-)) > > try 1 pixel borders (not this big black ones) with > > smaller cellspacings and cellpaddings > > > > It will look much more distinguished.. > > > > just my 2 cents > > > > Thank you. I too think the heavy black borders are a little > dramatic, but you cannot say that they don't make an impression. > > Chuck said he like mozilla.org, so I copied it: a ten > minute excursion with the Gimp (an experienced Gimp user > would have done a better job in two) and twenty minutes with vi. > > BTW: I am neither an Artist nor a Lawyer. me neither. But the picture you created is not bad at all :-) > I would like to break it into pieces and use Webware at least as > a generator for the fairly static pages. After separating content > from presentation, we can go back and talk about style. yes, indeed. Was just a "2 seconds thinking about it" email :-) > As far as the dynamic pieces go, many of the tools at mozilla.org > are already deployed at sourceforge. We can just link to the > appropriate pages. I would like some BlockPage class. I still have to think about the structure for it. You can make it very generall, e.g. with XML decscribing the page structure of certain SubServlets or just plain simple, but probably not very usefull then for other people.. -- Tom Schwaller http://www.linux-community.de |