Re: Doubts and Ideas
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 05/30/2007 11:08 AM, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Sun, May 27, 2007 at 06:20:40PM -0300, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) wrote:
>> ================
>> About a redesign
>> ================
>>
>> I think that should be done, from time to time, using
>> proper CSS, to show people that the Web Team is alive and working.
>> I'm not saying to put flash or any not *very* accessible material,
>> I"m just saying that from time to time (2-3 years) we could
>> re-arrange our CSS (and maybe layout) so people could come and
>> say: "COOL! Debian keeps surprising me!".
>
> Just changing the colors (even nuances) or a couple of visual bits and
> pieces, would be good.
Definetely. And I would like to have that as a goal. :)
>> For quite some time, I"m really unsure if we should use
>> <br /> or <br>, if we should use a quote (") or <q>, if we should
>> check new pages when they come in and review it (even before
>> translators work on it).
>
> I don't think we should ever be worrying about <br/> vs <br>, or similar
> formatting issues.
>
> WML *exists* for the purpose of abstracting those kinds of details
> out of the editor's view.
>
> The new <q> thing is a good idea, it should have been done long ago
> (also through WML, but this method with CSS is okay today).
Ok, one way or the other we should find a common definition
and push that, right now we have 4 or 5 different types for the same
tag, that won't help. :-(
So, if WML is the way to go, let's create a definition for
break lines and start patching our beloved website, if we can handle
that automatically even better for translators, if webmaster agree,
we can start that perhaps during DebCamp. ;)
>> I really think that we need to first change a couple of
>> core structures in the (X)HTML code and CSS and after we can
>> work on the logical and structural areas of the website.
>
> I think that logical and structural discussion is more important than
> formatting. Even visual design issues are by now more important than
> whether we pass this or that syntax validator :/
Really, I'm not worried about the validator, my focus
here it to make easier to use a few tricks when the logical
and structural changes come to the scene. Some changes needs
to have a 100% compatible (X)HTML code, which means that we
need to fix the underlayer and we can do that while preparing
the next steps.
I'm not giving up on one thing to the other, I'm just
lining them up to get them easier each step we take forward.
Cleaning the website, taking decisions about the standards
we are going to use and goals we want to achieve, could make
it easier to the logical and structural changes once they
come.
Honestly, what I'm looking right now is to improve
our code structure and our goals so we can have new code
flowing in with the expected syntax. I'm also working on
the proposed logical/structural changes, but that takes a
little bit more time.
Having a code syntax and a common goal would make
it easier for some of the people that I have been bothering
to help me with the logical/structural changes, right now I
can't say them we are using XHTML or HTML or $whatever. I'm
really not nitpicking about formatting or validators, this
is really part of a bigger plan. :-)
Kind regards,
- --
Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)
"Debian. Freedom to code. Code to freedom!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGXl9vCjAO0JDlykYRAlP8AJ4o3gV5e3v+GY5o2GSNTinGJPlK/QCgkaYP
oqeS41moEKPvja1nbzr5Q98=
=nDif
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: