Menu
▾
▴
nmock-two-dev
|
From: Mike M. <mik...@gm...> - 2006-02-14 22:56:48
|
Joe Poon and I have taken the jMock templating script and used it for NMock (thanks Nat!). I've updated the output on my web site - it looks pretty muc= h the same but is now using plain HTML for everything: http://the.earth.li/~mgm/nmock2/ Joe worked on another CSS skin for it last week. Not sure on the logo but I quite like the rest of the style: http://the.earth.li/~mgm/nmock2/pursuitofutopia/ Any comments much appreciated. We're gonna start working on the tutorial. Cheers, Mike. |
|
From: Owen R. <exo...@gm...> - 2006-02-15 06:42:29
|
foxy! nice work, pooner. o. On 14/02/06, Mike Mason <mik...@gm...> wrote: > Joe Poon and I have taken the jMock templating script and used it for NMo= ck > (thanks Nat!). I've updated the output on my web site - it looks pretty m= uch > the same but is now using plain HTML for everything: > > http://the.earth.li/~mgm/nmock2/ > > Joe worked on another CSS skin for it last week. Not sure on the logo but= I > quite like the rest of the style: > > http://the.earth.li/~mgm/nmock2/pursuitofutopia/ > > Any comments much appreciated. We're gonna start working on the tutorial. > > Cheers, > Mike. > -- Owen Rogers | http://dotnetjunkies.com/weblog/exortech | CruiseControl.NET - http://ccnet.thoughtworks.com |
|
From: Mike R. <mik...@gm...> - 2006-02-15 10:20:40
|
On 15/02/06, Owen Rogers <exo...@gm...> wrote: > foxy! nice work, pooner. Yikes - the project's gone all Canuck! :) Nice work on the plain-htmlifying. Mike |
|
From: Stephen F. <st...@m3...> - 2006-02-15 09:06:44
|
On 14 Feb 2006, at 22:56, Mike Mason wrote: > http://the.earth.li/~mgm/nmock2/ better. > Joe worked on another CSS skin for it last week. Not sure on the > logo but I > quite like the rest of the style: > > http://the.earth.li/~mgm/nmock2/pursuitofutopia/ > > Any comments much appreciated. We're gonna start working on the > tutorial. It's a little bit cute for my taste. And what's with the ThoughtWorks logo being so large? What support are they providing to the project -- and just being employed by them doesn't count. S. |
|
From: Nat P. <nat...@gm...> - 2006-02-15 10:51:31
|
Yes. Thoughtworks didn't support any of the initial implementation.=20 I just happened to be working for them while developing it in my spare time. They basically have the same relationship with NMock as with jMock, so I'd follow the same style when it comes to logos, attribution, etc. (e.g. none). --Nat On 2/15/06, Stephen Freeman <st...@m3...> wrote: > On 14 Feb 2006, at 22:56, Mike Mason wrote: > > http://the.earth.li/~mgm/nmock2/ > > better. > > > Joe worked on another CSS skin for it last week. Not sure on the > > logo but I > > quite like the rest of the style: > > > > http://the.earth.li/~mgm/nmock2/pursuitofutopia/ > > > > Any comments much appreciated. We're gonna start working on the > > tutorial. > > It's a little bit cute for my taste. And what's with the ThoughtWorks > logo being so large? What support are they providing to the project > -- and just being employed by them doesn't count. > > S. > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log fi= les > for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes > searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=3Dlnk&kid=3D103432&bid=3D230486&dat= =3D121642 > _______________________________________________ > NMock-two-dev mailing list > NMo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev > |
|
From: Mike M. <mik...@gm...> - 2006-02-15 16:12:30
|
On 2/15/06, Stephen Freeman <st...@m3...> wrote: > > It's a little bit cute for my taste. And what's with the ThoughtWorks > logo being so large? What support are they providing to the project > -- and just being employed by them doesn't count. > ThoughtWorks has provided 3 developers in Calgary for the better part of th= e last two weeks working on this stuff, especially documentation which tends to be light on most open-source projects. We intend to support pushing NMoc= k 2.0 into a live, released state. The code was originally written by Nat, a ThoughtWorks employee. ThoughtWorkers have been involved with NMock consistently during its lifetime. Sounds like this attribution question is important so let's tackle it head on. I'd *like* for there to be some attribution, even if it's only on an "about" page (regardless of the CSS style we use for the site). Nat, Steve, sounds like you want zero attribution. Is there some happy medium? Are ther= e any other organizations that should get attribution? Also sounds like we should include the Maven-style "team" page, which shoul= d probably include all the existing NMock people and any extras for NMock 2.0= . Cheers, Mike. |
|
From: Paul G. <pau...@gm...> - 2006-02-15 16:24:52
|
Given Mike's explanation, then ThoughtWorks should absolutely be credited. Zero attribution Sounds like sour grapes from some EX-ThoughtWorkers. Paul On 15/02/06, Mike Mason <mik...@gm...> wrote: > > On 2/15/06, Stephen Freeman <st...@m3...> wrote: > > > > It's a little bit cute for my taste. And what's with the ThoughtWorks > > logo being so large? What support are they providing to the project > > -- and just being employed by them doesn't count. > > > > ThoughtWorks has provided 3 developers in Calgary for the better part of > the last two weeks working on this stuff, especially documentation which > tends to be light on most open-source projects. We intend to support push= ing > NMock 2.0 into a live, released state. The code was originally written by > Nat, a ThoughtWorks employee. ThoughtWorkers have been involved with NMoc= k > consistently during its lifetime. > > Sounds like this attribution question is important so let's tackle it hea= d > on. I'd *like* for there to be some attribution, even if it's only on an > "about" page (regardless of the CSS style we use for the site). Nat, Stev= e, > sounds like you want zero attribution. Is there some happy medium? Are th= ere > any other organizations that should get attribution? > > Also sounds like we should include the Maven-style "team" page, which > should probably include all the existing NMock people and any extras for > NMock 2.0. > > Cheers, > Mike. > |
|
From: Stephen F. <st...@m3...> - 2006-02-15 16:37:17
|
Manners, please. We did the vast bulk of the work on our own time, much of it before joining TW. If TW has actually provided people with time (which I don't remember happening in London) then that should be recognised, and we can put a link up but not a dominating one. S. On 15 Feb 2006, at 16:24, Paul Gale wrote: > Given Mike's explanation, then ThoughtWorks should absolutely be > credited. > Zero attribution Sounds like sour grapes from some EX-ThoughtWorkers. > > Paul > > On 15/02/06, Mike Mason <mik...@gm...> wrote: >> >> On 2/15/06, Stephen Freeman <st...@m3...> wrote: >>> >>> It's a little bit cute for my taste. And what's with the >>> ThoughtWorks >>> logo being so large? What support are they providing to the project >>> -- and just being employed by them doesn't count. >>> >> >> ThoughtWorks has provided 3 developers in Calgary for the better >> part of >> the last two weeks working on this stuff, especially documentation >> which >> tends to be light on most open-source projects. We intend to >> support pushing >> NMock 2.0 into a live, released state. The code was originally >> written by >> Nat, a ThoughtWorks employee. ThoughtWorkers have been involved >> with NMock >> consistently during its lifetime. >> >> Sounds like this attribution question is important so let's tackle >> it head >> on. I'd *like* for there to be some attribution, even if it's only >> on an >> "about" page (regardless of the CSS style we use for the site). >> Nat, Steve, >> sounds like you want zero attribution. Is there some happy medium? >> Are there >> any other organizations that should get attribution? >> >> Also sounds like we should include the Maven-style "team" page, which >> should probably include all the existing NMock people and any >> extras for >> NMock 2.0. >> >> Cheers, >> Mike. >> |
|
From: Nat P. <nat...@gm...> - 2006-02-15 16:43:17
|
On 2/15/06, Stephen Freeman <st...@m3...> wrote: > If TW has actually provided people with time (which I don't remember > happening in London) then that should be recognised, and we can put a > link up but not a dominating one. I agree. If (and only if) TW has funded people to do this then they should be attributed on the team page. --Nat. |
|
From: Nat P. <nat...@gm...> - 2006-02-15 16:28:14
|
On 2/15/06, Mike Mason <mik...@gm...> wrote: > The code was originally written by Nat, a > ThoughtWorks employee. ThoughtWorkers have been involved with NMock > consistently during its lifetime. Thoughtworks, the corporate entity, didn't give me any support when I originally wrote it. I got useful feedback from Joe W but TW really gave me anti-support by dropping me into a .NET team as tech-lead with no time to learn anything about .NET. I started writing NMock2 to learn C# and the .NET platform so that I could do my day-job. The fact that I had to do this on my own time, after work when I had better things to be doing, did not make me very happy. There's more to it than just that but I'll shut up before it degrades into an embittered rant. However, you can see why I'm not too keen on TW stamping great big logos all over the project. --Nat. |
|
From: Mike M. <mik...@gm...> - 2006-02-15 16:43:14
|
On 2/15/06, Nat Pryce <nat...@gm...> wrote: > > However, you can see why I'm not too keen on TW > stamping great big logos all over the project. > I'm sorry things didn't work out. It's only this morning that I've realised you folks are no longer TW employees and I understand a bit better where you're coming from. It was not my intention to slap big logos all over the site - that was a version of CSS/layout to see what people thought. I do think it's fair to have *some* kind of attribution in there, because TW and TWers did support you in your work on NMock (I understand that you feel under-supported) and is trying to get this thing out there for the world. I'm going to put together a "team" page including a small TW logo and some mention of the history of the NMock project(s). Maybe we can chat about whether that page is appropriate and contains enough of the right peoples names, etc. Cheers, Mike. |
|
From: Nat P. <nat...@gm...> - 2006-02-15 16:47:24
|
There's an important distinction between TW-ers giving feedback and TW, the corporate entity, giving official support. The former happened, the latter didn't. If they are giving official support in Canada, then that should be attributed. --Nat On 2/15/06, Mike Mason <mik...@gm...> wrote: > On 2/15/06, Nat Pryce <nat...@gm...> wrote: > > However, you can see why I'm not too keen on TW > > stamping great big logos all over the project. > > > > I'm sorry things didn't work out. It's only this morning that I've realis= ed > you folks are no longer TW employees and I understand a bit better where > you're coming from. > > It was not my intention to slap big logos all over the site - that was a > version of CSS/layout to see what people thought. I do think it's fair to > have *some* kind of attribution in there, because TW and TWers did suppor= t > you in your work on NMock (I understand that you feel under-supported) an= d > is trying to get this thing out there for the world. > > I'm going to put together a "team" page including a small TW logo and som= e > mention of the history of the NMock project(s). Maybe we can chat about > whether that page is appropriate and contains enough of the right peoples > names, etc. > > Cheers, > Mike. > |
|
From: Paul G. <pau...@gm...> - 2006-02-15 16:51:07
|
AFAIK, for as long as you were on the TW payroll they have ALL intellectual property rights associated with any work you do whether it be done on your own time and/or your own machine or not. They own said IP. Folks keep forgetting that. Therefore they have the right to have their name displayed anyway and anywhere they want if any contributions were made to the project by active ThoughtWorkers. This is ofcourse, only if they wanted to get snippy about it, but you shouldn't ignore it. So the fact that TW did not put up any cash for its implementation is not the issue. Paul On 15/02/06, Nat Pryce <nat...@gm...> wrote: > > On 2/15/06, Stephen Freeman <st...@m3...> wrote: > > If TW has actually provided people with time (which I don't remember > > happening in London) then that should be recognised, and we can put a > > link up but not a dominating one. > > I agree. If (and only if) TW has funded people to do this then they > should be attributed on the team page. > > --Nat. > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log > files > for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes > searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmdlnk&kid=103432&bid#0486&dat=121642 > _______________________________________________ > NMock-two-dev mailing list > NMo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev > |
|
From: Mike M. <mik...@gm...> - 2006-02-15 16:59:32
|
I'm trying really really hard not to go anywhere near all that IP and ownership stuff. I'm hoping we can come to some kind of balance where a little attribution is acceptable to everyone. I am trying to get NMock 2.0out of the door, I am not trying to advertise TW. Open-source works when all participants are engaged and collaborating, which is what I'd like to achieve here. I hadn't even intended to put the logo on every page, we're getting all upset about one site mockup, let's chill. Cheers, Mike. |
|
From: Stephen F. <st...@m3...> - 2006-02-15 17:03:13
|
Absolutely. Put something on the site where appropriate. S. On 15 Feb 2006, at 16:58, Mike Mason wrote: > I'm trying really really hard not to go anywhere near all that IP and > ownership stuff. I'm hoping we can come to some kind of balance > where a > little attribution is acceptable to everyone. I am trying to get NMock > 2.0out of the door, I am not trying to advertise TW. Open-source works > when all > participants are engaged and collaborating, which is what I'd like to > achieve here. > > I hadn't even intended to put the logo on every page, we're getting > all > upset about one site mockup, let's chill. > > Cheers, > Mike. |
|
From: Nat P. <nat...@gm...> - 2006-02-15 17:16:45
|
Actually the lawyer in the London office said that TW have no claim on any code we wrote in our own time unless it competed with a system being built by or for a client. E.g. no open-source billing systems for major ISPs or fixed-income derivative trading systems allowed. --Nat. On 2/15/06, Paul Gale <pau...@gm...> wrote: > > AFAIK, for as long as you were on the TW payroll they have ALL intellectu= al > property rights associated with any work you do whether it be done on you= r > own time and/or your own machine or not. They own said IP. Folks keep > forgetting that. Therefore they have the right to have their name display= ed > anyway and anywhere they want if any contributions were made to the proje= ct > by active ThoughtWorkers. This is ofcourse, only if they wanted to get > snippy about it, but you shouldn't ignore it. So the fact that TW did not > put up any cash for its implementation is not the issue. > > Paul > > > On 15/02/06, Nat Pryce <nat...@gm...> wrote: > > > > On 2/15/06, Stephen Freeman <st...@m3...> wrote: > > > If TW has actually provided people with time (which I don't remember > > > happening in London) then that should be recognised, and we can put a > > > link up but not a dominating one. > > > > I agree. If (and only if) TW has funded people to do this then they > > should be attributed on the team page. > > > > --Nat. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log > files > > for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes > > searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! > > > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmdlnk&kid=103432&bid#0486&dat=121642 > > _______________________________________________ > > NMock-two-dev mailing list > > NMo...@li... > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev > > > > |
|
From: Stephen F. <st...@m3...> - 2006-02-15 17:02:19
|
Actually, I seem to remember some exclusions at the time to allow =20 open source working. And most of the origins of the work was done =20 before people joined up because /after/ we joined up many of us were =20 wrung dry by our projects. And some of the contributions from TW =20 employees were derived from XtC discussions with non-TW employees. =20 I'd love to see the mess if TW tried to enforce anything. So, did we get out of bed on the wrong side this morning? S. On 15 Feb 2006, at 16:51, Paul Gale wrote: > AFAIK, for as long as you were on the TW payroll they have ALL =20 > intellectual > property rights associated with any work you do whether it be done =20 > on your > own time and/or your own machine or not. They own said IP. Folks keep > forgetting that. Therefore they have the right to have their name =20 > displayed > anyway and anywhere they want if any contributions were made to the =20= > project > by active ThoughtWorkers. This is ofcourse, only if they wanted to get > snippy about it, but you shouldn't ignore it. So the fact that TW =20 > did not > put up any cash for its implementation is not the issue. > > Paul > > On 15/02/06, Nat Pryce <nat...@gm...> wrote: >> >> On 2/15/06, Stephen Freeman <st...@m3...> wrote: >>> If TW has actually provided people with time (which I don't remember >>> happening in London) then that should be recognised, and we can =20 >>> put a >>> link up but not a dominating one. >> >> I agree. If (and only if) TW has funded people to do this then they >> should be attributed on the team page. >> >> --Nat. >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through =20= >> log >> files >> for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes >> searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD =20 >> SPLUNK! >> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmdlnk&kid=103432&bid#0486&dat=121642 >> _______________________________________________ >> NMock-two-dev mailing list >> NMo...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev >> |
|
From: Paul G. <pau...@gm...> - 2006-02-15 17:10:48
|
Simply highlighting an issue worthy of consideration. I agree, enforcing it would be a nightmare, and I don't think they should try. But they do have some rights, however minor. Personally I think their vicarious IP agreement stinks, but it is what it is. Now who got out of bed the wrong side? ;) Paul On 15/02/06, Stephen Freeman <st...@m3...> wrote: > > Actually, I seem to remember some exclusions at the time to allow > open source working. And most of the origins of the work was done > before people joined up because /after/ we joined up many of us were > wrung dry by our projects. And some of the contributions from TW > employees were derived from XtC discussions with non-TW employees. > I'd love to see the mess if TW tried to enforce anything. > > So, did we get out of bed on the wrong side this morning? > > S. > > On 15 Feb 2006, at 16:51, Paul Gale wrote: > > AFAIK, for as long as you were on the TW payroll they have ALL > > intellectual > > property rights associated with any work you do whether it be done > > on your > > own time and/or your own machine or not. They own said IP. Folks keep > > forgetting that. Therefore they have the right to have their name > > displayed > > anyway and anywhere they want if any contributions were made to the > > project > > by active ThoughtWorkers. This is ofcourse, only if they wanted to get > > snippy about it, but you shouldn't ignore it. So the fact that TW > > did not > > put up any cash for its implementation is not the issue. > > > > Paul > > > > On 15/02/06, Nat Pryce <nat...@gm...> wrote: > >> > >> On 2/15/06, Stephen Freeman <st...@m3...> wrote: > >>> If TW has actually provided people with time (which I don't remember > >>> happening in London) then that should be recognised, and we can > >>> put a > >>> link up but not a dominating one. > >> > >> I agree. If (and only if) TW has funded people to do this then they > >> should be attributed on the team page. > >> > >> --Nat. > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------- > >> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through > >> log > >> files > >> for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes > >> searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD > >> SPLUNK! > >> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmdlnk&kid=103432&bid#0486&dat=121642 > >> _______________________________________________ > >> NMock-two-dev mailing list > >> NMo...@li... > >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev > >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log > files > for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes > searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmdlnk&kid=103432&bid#0486&dat=121642 > _______________________________________________ > NMock-two-dev mailing list > NMo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev > |
|
From: Jim A. <JA...@th...> - 2006-02-15 17:47:23
|
> So, did we get out of bed on the wrong side this morning? It would appear so :-) I wrote code for NMock (v1). Can I have a big animated gif that says "JIM = ARNOLD CONTRIBUTED TO NMOCK" somewhere on the site, with a link to my=20 website? Of course not. Let's just have a "Thanks to the following for=20 their support" section and stick a list of names in it in plain text.=20 That's more in the spirit of open source software, I think. Jim Stephen Freeman <st...@m3...>=20 Sent by: nmo...@li... 15/02/2006 17:02 Please respond to nmo...@li... To nmo...@li... cc Subject Re: [NMock2-Dev] NMock2 website current status Actually, I seem to remember some exclusions at the time to allow=20 open source working. And most of the origins of the work was done=20 before people joined up because /after/ we joined up many of us were=20 wrung dry by our projects. And some of the contributions from TW=20 employees were derived from XtC discussions with non-TW employees.=20 I'd love to see the mess if TW tried to enforce anything. So, did we get out of bed on the wrong side this morning? S. On 15 Feb 2006, at 16:51, Paul Gale wrote: > AFAIK, for as long as you were on the TW payroll they have ALL=20 > intellectual > property rights associated with any work you do whether it be done=20 > on your > own time and/or your own machine or not. They own said IP. Folks keep > forgetting that. Therefore they have the right to have their name=20 > displayed > anyway and anywhere they want if any contributions were made to the=20 > project > by active ThoughtWorkers. This is ofcourse, only if they wanted to get > snippy about it, but you shouldn't ignore it. So the fact that TW=20 > did not > put up any cash for its implementation is not the issue. > > Paul > > On 15/02/06, Nat Pryce <nat...@gm...> wrote: >> >> On 2/15/06, Stephen Freeman <st...@m3...> wrote: >>> If TW has actually provided people with time (which I don't remember >>> happening in London) then that should be recognised, and we can=20 >>> put a >>> link up but not a dominating one. >> >> I agree. If (and only if) TW has funded people to do this then they >> should be attributed on the team page. >> >> --Nat. >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through=20 >> log >> files >> for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes >> searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD=20 >> SPLUNK! >> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmdlnk&kid=103432&bid#0486&dat=121642 >> =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F >> NMock-two-dev mailing list >> NMo...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev >> ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log=20 files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=3Dlnk&kid=103432&bid#0486&dat=121642 =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F NMock-two-dev mailing list NMo...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev |
|
From: Mike M. <mik...@gm...> - 2006-02-15 18:25:25
|
On 2/15/06, Jim Arnold <JA...@th...> wrote: > > Let's just have a "Thanks to the following for > their support" section and stick a list of names in it in plain text. > That's more in the spirit of open source software, I think. > I made a team page. Please help me make it complete - it's very very incomplete right now and my intention is not to insult anyone by leaving them off the list, so please don't be mad. I would love to add as many people as we can think of. http://the.earth.li/~mgm/nmock2/team.html Also, if you would prefer I removed or changed your email address please le= t me know and I'll do that. Cheers, Mike. |
|
From: Nat P. <nat...@gm...> - 2006-02-16 11:45:30
|
That's cool. I think the attribution is spot on. --Nat. On 2/15/06, Mike Mason <mik...@gm...> wrote: > On 2/15/06, Jim Arnold <JA...@th...> wrote: > > Let's just have a "Thanks to the following for > > their support" section and stick a list of names in it in plain text. > > That's more in the spirit of open source software, I think. > > > > I made a team page. Please help me make it complete - it's very very > incomplete right now and my intention is not to insult anyone by leaving > them off the list, so please don't be mad. I would love to add as many > people as we can think of. > > http://the.earth.li/~mgm/nmock2/team.html > > Also, if you would prefer I removed or changed your email address please = let > me know and I'll do that. > > Cheers, > Mike. > |
|
From: Gary F. <sf_...@ma...> - 2006-02-16 18:30:59
|
Mike Mason wrote: > Joe Poon and I ... <http://the.earth.li/%7Emgm/nmock2/> > > Joe worked on another CSS skin for it last week. Not sure on the logo > but I quite like the rest of the style: > > http://the.earth.li/~mgm/nmock2/pursuitofutopia/ > <http://the.earth.li/%7Emgm/nmock2/pursuitofutopia/> For what it's worth, the Norton pop-up blocker causes this to come up empty. Gary |
|
From: Joe P. <joe...@gm...> - 2006-02-16 18:39:22
|
Unfortunately, that would be IE not enjoying the ajax/prototype. Oops. But it's all good, Mike's go forward website using plain html plays nicely with both IE & Firefox. - joe On 2/16/06, Gary Feldman <sf_...@ma...> wrote: > > Mike Mason wrote: > > > Joe Poon and I ... <http://the.earth.li/%7Emgm/nmock2/> > > > > Joe worked on another CSS skin for it last week. Not sure on the logo > > but I quite like the rest of the style: > > > > http://the.earth.li/~mgm/nmock2/pursuitofutopia/ > > <http://the.earth.li/%7Emgm/nmock2/pursuitofutopia/> > > For what it's worth, the Norton pop-up blocker causes this to come up > empty. > > Gary > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log > files > for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes > searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=3Dlnk&kid=3D103432&bid=3D230486&dat= =3D121642 > _______________________________________________ > NMock-two-dev mailing list > NMo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev > |
|
From: Gary F. <sf_...@ma...> - 2006-02-16 20:08:48
|
Joe Poon wrote: > Unfortunately, that would be IE not enjoying the ajax/prototype. Oops. > But it's all good, Mike's go forward website using plain html plays > nicely with both IE & Firefox. Actually, it was Firefox. Norton overrides the window.open method. Rather than doing something inside the browser, Norton filters the HTML, inserting its own methods. It's a very primitive approach, but it has more powerful customization than Firefox or even the Adblock extension (meaning I could fix it at my end if necessary). But no matter. The other site design works just fine. Gary > > - joe > > On 2/16/06, *Gary Feldman* <sf_...@ma... > <mailto:sf_...@ma...>> wrote: > > Mike Mason wrote: > > > Joe Poon and I ... <http://the.earth.li/%7Emgm/nmock2/> > > > > Joe worked on another CSS skin for it last week. Not sure on the > logo > > but I quite like the rest of the style: > > > > http://the.earth.li/~mgm/nmock2/pursuitofutopia/ > <http://the.earth.li/%7Emgm/nmock2/pursuitofutopia/> > > < http://the.earth.li/%7Emgm/nmock2/pursuitofutopia/> > > For what it's worth, the Norton pop-up blocker causes this to come > up empty. > > Gary > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through > log files > for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes > searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD > SPLUNK! > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 > <http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642> > _______________________________________________ > NMock-two-dev mailing list > NMo...@li... > <mailto:NMo...@li...> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev > <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev> > > |
