Marc Betz wrote:
I'd be pleased as punch to expand the zip file if I could figure out how
to do that. If there is a way on google pages, I haven't found it.
For whatever it's worth, I couldn't find a way to upload more than one
file at a time. With just a handful of files it's not a big deal but I
wouldn't want to do it for all those in the zip file.
I unpacked the zip file locally and quickly skimmed the contents in my
browser. It looks as though the changes are isolated to the logo and
the copyright notice at the bottom of each page. Oh, I almost missed
the Welcome! page. Or is there anything else?
-- Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 9:13 AM
To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Apache "look and feel" for stdcxx docs
Marc,
Before I respond to your points below, let me suggest that you might
want to follow Mark's example and expand the .zip file so that people
can easily preview your changes on your page without having to download
and expand it themselves. Here's Mark's demo of an otherwise unrelated
documentation project:
http://mark.g.brown.googlepages.com/stdcxxutil
Martin
Marc Betz wrote:
Hi, everyone,
Here is my take on the feedback returned on my changes to the
documentation:
- RE banner: I am entirely agreeable to a prettier banner, but that
request needs the talents of a graphics designer. That is most
definitely not me. Does anyone know of one willing to contribute a
bit of time?
- RE collapsible TOC in navigation pane: this would require
JavaScript.
We have not used JavaScript at Rogue Wave so I don't know anything
about
it, although I imagine I could pick it up pretty quickly, at least
for
something as common as this. We do not use JavaScript because our
documentation
has always deliberately used very plain vanilla HTML to guarantee it
will
display well in any browser. Myself, I would suggest keeping it that
way.
- RE buttons: these do not play much part in the frame view, but they
are
needed in the No Frames view. We could, of course, just forget about
the
No Frames view, but I think there are still those who prefer it.
- RE incomplete sample: you can get a complete copy of both the
reference
and user guides by downloading the zip archive at:
http://betzmarc.googlepages.com/stdcxx.
I would just have put a viewable version up there except I cannot
figure out how to upload multiple files, and I am certainly not
going
to do it one at a time.
I would like to suggest that we commit these documents as they are
currently so I can get busy on cleansing the documents of references
to Rogue Wave, SourcePro, and modules. Then we can fiddle with the
format some more later.
Is that agreeable? If so, could someone do it?
Marc
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Sebor
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 9:41 PM
To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Apache "look and feel" for stdcxx docs
Liviu Nicoara wrote:
Martin Sebor wrote:
Liviu Nicoara wrote:
Martin Sebor wrote:
Which list? Is there any project that you liked in particular?
http://directory.apache.org the most.
You mean the top banner? I like it okay but I like some others better.
If I had to pick one it would probably be Maven (maven.apache.org).
Not necessarily the graphic on the right but the overall design of the
banner.
FWIW, I like the Web interface to the Standard C++ Library
documentation for IBM XLC/C++ 9.0, especially the expandable
navigation frame on the left.
Yes, functionally it is complete and it provides a good user
experience.
From an aesthetic point of view it could use a bit of color --
perhaps a comfortable, subtly colored background, more eye-pleasing
icons, etc.
Sure. That's always a matter of personal preference but I agree that
the predominant black/white/gray makes it a little dull.
Also, it wouldn't hurt to have browser-neutral html as advocated
here:
http://www.anybrowser.org/
I agree. That shouldn't be something new, though. AFAICT, we're
already there.
E.g., my Firefox renders IBM's site poorly (overlapping text, frames,
etc.).
I don't see any serious problems in my browsers (Seamonkey 1.0.9 or
FireFox 1.5.0.12) but I can imagine that the navigation tree might
give some browsers trouble. We're also constrained by Marc's schedule
as to how fancy we can get in these improvements.
Martin
