On Fri, 26 May 2017 at 21:28 Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi folks, > > Over on > https://github.com/pypa/python-packaging-user-guide/pull/305#issuecomment-304169735 > we're looking to update the theming of packaging.python.org to match > that of the language documentation at docs.python.org. > > Doing that would also entail updating the documentation of the > individual tools and services (pip, pypi, setuptools, wheel, etc) to > maintain consistency with the main packaging user guide, so Jon has > tentatively broken the theme out as a (not yet published anywhere) > "pypa-theme" package to make it easier to re-use across multiple > projects. > > The question that occurred to me is whether or not it might make more > sense to instead call that package "psf-docs-theme", to reflect that > it's intended specifically for projects that are legally backed by the > PSF, and that general Python projects looking for a nice, > high-contrast, theme should consider using an org independent one like > Alabaster instead. > > Thoughts? Should we stick with pypa-theme as the name? Switch to > psf-docs-theme? Publish both, with pypa-theme adding PyPA specific > elements to a more general psf-docs-theme? > If we're going to share the theme beyond docs.python.org it makes sense to have a shared theme under the Python org that can easily be reused by multiple sets of documentation. As for the name, the psf-docs-theme seems fine with me. -Brett > > Cheers, > Nick. > > P.S. In case folks aren't aware of the full legal arrangements here: > in addition to the informal "Python Packaging Authority" designation, > there's also a formally constituted PSF Packaging Working Group that > provides the legal connection back to the PSF. That means the > relationship between PyPA and the PSF ends up being pretty similar to > the one between python-dev and the PSF, where there's no direct PSF > involvement in day to day development activities, but the PSF provides > the legal and financial backing needed to sustainably maintain popular > community-supported software and services. > > Part of my rationale for suggesting the inclusion of "psf" in the > package name is to make it clear that the intent would be to create a > clear and distinctive "trade dress" for the documentation of directly > PSF backed projects: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_dress#Protection_for_electronic_interfaces_and_websites > > Future requests to use the theme (beyond CPython and the PyPA) could > then be run through the PSF Trademarks committee, as with requests to > use the registered marks. > > Whereas if we go with pypa-theme, then that would just be a > non-precedent-setting agreement between PyPA and CPython to share a > documentation theme, without trying to define any form of > documentation trade dress for the PSF in general. > > -- > Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: > https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/brett%40python.org >
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
