Am 04/05/2013 12:18 AM, schrieb Rob Weir:
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Kay Schenk<kay.sch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Marcus (OOo)<marcus.m...@wtnet.de> wrote:
Am 04/01/2013 03:12 AM, schrieb Rob Weir:
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Marcus (OOo)<marcus.m...@wtnet.de>
wrote:
Hi Rob,
I want to cleanup the structure and remove 1 of the 2 directories for
images.
Therefore I've added the images from "download/images" also to
"images/"
and
updated the "download/index.html" to point to the new location.
Please tell me, is it save to remove the "download/images/" directory?
If
not what else has to be updated?
I'm not sure I like the idea of having a global images directory
rather than having images scoped to the subtree where they are
actually used. Having a single global directory increases the changes
of having accidental conflicts. But if you want to make this change,
That's not what I want. Please read again. I just want to get rid of 1 of
the 2 images directories in the "download/" sub-dir.
Of course it doesn't make sense to have a single images dir for the
entire
website. ;-)
Actually I don't think a single "images" directory for the whole site is
such a bad idea. We could subdivide it by area -- e.e. images/download.
Maybe worth discussing at some point?
What advantage do you see to that? I could see that for common images that
were essentially "global" this might make sense. But otherwise having
images contained in the subtree that uses them gives more isolation,
prevents name collisions, accidental side effects, etc.
Of course from an information standpoint foo/bar and bar/foo are equally
expressive. But I think we're more likely to copy, move, translate, etc.,
subsites as a whole, so having, e.g., /download be self-contained is a nice
property.
be sure to test each of the "Help spread the word" links for
Twitter/Facebook/Google+ to make sure those applications are finding
the right images. I don't mean the image on our page. I mean the
image on the post once it is on Facebook, etc. Since hundreds of such
posts have already been made, we probably don't want to break any of
those links.
You mean Twitter/Facebook/Google+ articles are referring to
".../download/images/*" files? That's bad, then we won't never be able to
move such kind of files in the future.
I don't know this. I'm just suggesting that it is something we should
check. We have over 7 million external links into www.openoffice.org. So
it is hard to make any significant changes without breaking something. But
that shouldn't prevent us from making improvements. But if we make any big
changes we'll want to go back and see if any critical external sites need
to be notified/updated.
When I see this correct, then the files that you have checked-in into
"www.oo.org/download/images/" are not that old - much more recent than
the files in "www.oo.org/download/cachedimages/". IMHO not enough to get
wide-spreaded like other data on our website.
Do you remember where you have used the image files? Then I (or you)
could change the links to the new files in "www.oo.org/images/". And any
more broken links can be changed then.
So, can you help me with this?
Thanks
Marcus
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
