On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Brad Beyenhof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think we're getting mixed up with definitions here. A colophon > originally meant a publisher's emblem or symbol, which favicon.ico > does arguably fill. However, I think Todd is referring to the other > definition, which refers to something like a newspaper's masthead... a > list of all contributors, editors, designers, and whatnot that were > involved in production.
Oh. I was going by this definition: 1 : an inscription placed at the end of a book or manuscript usually with facts relative to its production I didn't even know about the other definition. What I would like is if it was standard for there to be an about link or file that says what software was used, maybe who's the hoster if it's significant, who contributed, who was the design team if it was commerically produced, etc. "Into the Wardrobe" is a site about C.S. Lewis and has a very slick very professional look. I emailed the webmaster and asked what CMS he uses. He said he produced the thing entirely on his own. No CMS. Very impressive. But most sites aren't like that, and it would be interesting to see what makes different sites go. Sort of a "view source" for the 21st century. That's what I meant by colophon. But I can see favicon fitting the bill for the other type of colophon, Stewart. -todd -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
