Re: [xmlroff] Re: xmlroff website help wanted

[Tony G. <Ton...@Su...>]

Stefan Seefeld <se...@sy...> writes:
> Tony Graham wrote:
>> The version currently in CVS adds some logos at the bottom of the
>> navigation bar.
>
> fine. Though the website doesn't appear to be updated from this new
> source. I was ready to investigate when I realized that a simple build
> fixed the site locally. Don't you regenerate the website automatically
> either per crontab or per checkin ?

SourceForge crontabs are currently disabled, and setting everything up
to regenerate the html on checkin might be a bit much to do.

The Makefile for the actual DocBook web pages has a better-developed
use of ssh for getting pages onto the SourceForge site than the ways
that I've played with so far.

I didn't update the web site because I was intending to come back and
do a better customization than at present.  I don't like the fact that
the current logos also add extra whitespace in the body of the page.

>> It would look better if a 'rowspan="2"' deep inside the DocBook
>> website stylesheets were 'rowspan="3"', but that was more than I
>> wanted to customise at this time of night.
>> I'll leave the RSS stuff up to you, Stefan.
>
> The attached patch replaces the current 'news.html' content by the
> rss news feed from sf.net. The styling still needs a lot of work,

Thank you.

> but as that can all be done via css customization, I'll keep that
> issue open for the moment.
> Please add some news (on the sf.net) so we can all see the rss feed
> working :-)

I've added a new item (partly so you can see what I've been working on
when I didn't reply yesterday), but when I generate news.html, all I
get is an empty <div>.  Any ideas?

It shouldn't be a proxy problem, since I'm no longer getting the error
message that I used to get before I had my proxy set up.

> I'd still like to see the website give a more accurate impression of
> the current status of the project. I'm not sure though how feasable that
> is without more manual work (from your part). Can't the unit tests
> be run automatically and some status page generated from that ?

If I'd answered yesterday, I would have said that it would be
comparatively easy to generate a version of the test results report
that didn't link to the cgi scripts for updating the result summaries.

Today, it seems to me that an occasional visitor would be more
impressed if there was a graph showing number of tests and percentage
of passed tests (increasing) over time.  Now, that would be more work.

> Just so that occasional visitors that want to watch the progress
> in terms of feature coverage could get a quick impression.

A good idea, certainly.  Would the static test result summary page
suffice for starters?

Regards,


Tony.