Comments inline...
Axel Hecht wrote:
> Hi,
> here a bit on the current working of the site:
>
> The pages are fed to a perl script, wrapping the content with the
> mozilla outer stuff.
> It includes the navigation as well as the last modified stuff (with a
> link to bonsai).
> This staging script seems to be quite busy, updating content usually
> takes about an hour.
Hmm... I think that SSI would be better suited for that than CGI...
> As far as content management goes, CVS is the tool that all the existing
> interfaces (content developers and bonsai) know, so we should stick to
> that. IMHO.
I agreee... CVS also makes it easier to see what changed. My thoughts
are do the redesign outside of CVS, than once the bulk of the work is
done, start a new branch and check it all in.
> Fancy drop downs or other gimmicks for the navigation are not a very
> good idea, as we shouldn't request too much standards conformance from
> the browsers. And in the end, the site should still be viewable by lynx
> et al.
>
> I don't know if the site should be standards compliant, as the different
> browsers around react quite differently on that, eg. NS4.x is a
> nightmare when it comes down to styling (esp. if people don't trust
> javascript). I would consider WORKSFORMOST to be more important than
> STANDARDSCOMPLIANT.
I think I'll have to disagree with you here. Standards Compliant is the
biggest selling point of the Mozilla browser and thus the Mozilla.org
web page should also conform to those standards. Thats not to say that
Lynx and old broswers don't deserve to see the content of Mozilla.org,
just that all pages should be fully complient with the W3C standards.
> Oh, and yes, I do think that an overhaul is a good idea. And Gerv found
> some critical missing content.
>
> Axel
