Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft

[Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com>]

On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 15:41 +0000, Martyn Russell wrote:
> Murray Cumming wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 13:16 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote:
> >> And I still believe that the official GNOME bindings deserve to be in
> >> a
> >> separate section.
> > 
> > I see that the site is live already. Please don't just ignore this
> > regression. I've mentioned it before too.
> 
> Hi Murray,
> 
> We are not ignoring it, it is a planned change. There are one or two and
> we have had quite a few improvement requests since going live - we will
> be getting to it soon.
> 
> Currently I am contemplating:
> 
> 1. Removing the whole table and linking to the GNOME bindings page
> instead which I think jdahlin suggest to me.
> 
> 2. Removing anything older than (including) 2.8 which is no longer
> supported I think. If we do this then there is little point in having
> half the languages on there since the data we have shows most are only
> partially supported up to 2.4.

But the data we have is probably out-of-date and will never be regularly
up-to-date. If you just remove them then there's no easy way for people
to find them. The original page had text about how the information is
self-reported and therefore not that reliable.

> Currently the bindings link is broken since it has changed since
> starting the pages. I guess we should link to
> 
>   http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointTwentyone/Bindings

That's really just for release management. I don't think it would be
wise to make that the only list of our supported bindings. The existing
page worked fairly well.

> This link will have to be kept up to date, if this is the link to use,
> it would be better to have a more permanent link that doesn't change
> with new versions of GNOME (which we used to have).

Theoretically, 
http://www.gnome.org/start/unstable/Bindings
should do that but it doesn't seem to work for sub-pages.

> 3. Putting the language bindings on a separate page (if we keep the
> table of course).
> 
> This any a bunch of other things we have had requested will be processed
> in due course :)

OK. Thanks.

-- 
murrayc murrayc com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com