Re: GTK+ Website Review - Hosting Windows Binaries

[Martyn Russell <martyn imendio com>]

Murray Cumming wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 15:05 +0000, Martyn Russell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I will be posting my final review of the gtk.org pages in the coming few
>> weeks and I wanted people's opinions on a few things.
>>
>> 1. Would anyone object to putting the Windows binaries on the gtk.org
>> site instead of Tor's site? It makes sense to me to have it there. Tor,
>> any input here?
>>
>> 2. With regards to the FAQ, is there a burning need to have this in a
>> docbook format? Currently it is a mess and I am thinking of reforming
>> it, but before I do, I wonder if we should just put it completely in
>> HTML and as part of the website. Is there any need for us to put it in
>> PDF or any other format, really?
> 
> HTML is slightly more likely to be kept-up-to-date than DocBook.
> However, no FAQ is likely to be kept up to date unless it's very easy to
> edit/comment.

Well, given the new site has proper CSS and HTML separation, editing the
FAQ will be no harder to edit than the docbook SGML.

> 
>> 3. Do we really need a gtk 1.2 FAQ? If not, I will remove the cruft from
>> the FAQ that is no longer pertinent.
> 
> Sounds good.

Great!

-- 
Regards,
Martyn