nd description.
david
2006/10/18, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On 10/18/06, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On 9/25/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Someone on IRC brought up a good point about the Shale
> > > Maybe it's something like a "meta-framework". It's not really a
> > > "framework" as such because JSF is the framework.
> > > But it is some missing parts that integrate fairly
> seamlessly with
> > > the JSF framework. Missing parts and added value -
> things like Clay
> > > and Dialo
On 10/19/06, Kito D. Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Oct 18, 2006, at 5:46 PM, David Geary wrote:
>
> > If not working on it, I've been thinking about the homepage lately,
> > and it strikes me that I don't really know how to spin
> Shale. We have
> > so many unrelated features that it's d
> On Oct 18, 2006, at 5:46 PM, David Geary wrote:
>
> > If not working on it, I've been thinking about the homepage lately,
> > and it strikes me that I don't really know how to spin
> Shale. We have
> > so many unrelated features that it's difficult to say
> "Shale is...".
> > The addition
On Oct 18, 2006, at 5:46 PM, David Geary wrote:
If not working on it, I've been thinking about the homepage lately,
and it
strikes me that I don't really know how to spin Shale. We have so many
unrelated features that it's difficult to say "Shale is...". The
addition of
JPA makes things eve
nahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 10/18/06, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 9/25/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Someone on IRC brought up a good point about the Shale home page: We
> > don't say what Shale *is* until 1/3 of the way
On 10/18/06, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 9/25/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Someone on IRC brought up a good point about the Shale home page: We
> don't say what Shale *is* until 1/3 of the way down the page.
>
> I think the info
On 9/25/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Someone on IRC brought up a good point about the Shale home page: We
don't say what Shale *is* until 1/3 of the way down the page.
I think the information in the paragraph that starts "Thus, Shale
is..." belongs up a
On 9/25/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 9/25/06, David Geary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, IMO, that paragraph and the rest of the Background section are
> dated now that we've cut ties with Struts. We could probably do with a
new
> introduction altogether.
I'm fine wi
>From: "David Geary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> 2006/9/25, Wendy Smoak :
> >
> > Someone on IRC brought up a good point about the Shale home page: We
> > don't say what Shale *is* until 1/3 of the way down the page.
> >
> > I thi
On 9/25/06, David Geary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually, IMO, that paragraph and the rest of the Background section are
dated now that we've cut ties with Struts. We could probably do with a new
introduction altogether.
And a snazzy new logo, dammit.
James is running that show. :) Votes
2006/9/25, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Someone on IRC brought up a good point about the Shale home page: We
don't say what Shale *is* until 1/3 of the way down the page.
I think the information in the paragraph that starts "Thus, Shale
is..." belongs up a
Not volunteering here but I definitely think we could streamline
things so that its easier to navigate. IMO we have too much crammed
onto that first page.
sean
On 9/25/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Someone on IRC brought up a good point about the Shale home page: We
don
Someone on IRC brought up a good point about the Shale home page: We
don't say what Shale *is* until 1/3 of the way down the page.
I think the information in the paragraph that starts "Thus, Shale
is..." belongs up at the top of the page.
Thoughts? Volunteers to fix it? :)
--
Wendy
14 matches
Mail list logo
