Hi Guys,
Well, I must admit to not being really excited by the new logo.
Not to hurt people's feelings, note that it is good, but I think it
could be better. None of these are really strong held but are my
opinions.
As it currently is I actually prefer the 'non svg shapes'
version as
On Nov 8, 2004, at 5:51 AM, Thomas DeWeese wrote:
Hi Guys,
Well, I must admit to not being really excited by the new logo.
Not to hurt people's feelings, note that it is good, but I think it
could be better. None of these are really strong held but are my
opinions.
I was hoping for feedback
Clay Leeds wrote:
On Nov 8, 2004, at 5:51 AM, Thomas DeWeese wrote:
As it currently is I actually prefer the 'non svg shapes'
version as the used shapes are rather simplistic (it makes it looks
like an 80's graphics package).
I agree wholeheartedly. My intent was to get the idea of pushing the
Clay Leeds wrote:
I've attached a slightly (very rough!) modified version which gives an
idea of what I think may work better. Namely, the paper is curled in a
different direction, so the XML on the 'back side' is horizontal, making
it more readable. Although it's not 'true' (i.e., the text
On Nov 8, 2004, at 11:20 AM, Thomas DeWeese wrote:
Clay Leeds wrote:
I've attached a slightly (very rough!) modified version which gives
an idea of what I think may work better. Namely, the paper is curled
in a different direction, so the XML on the 'back side' is
horizontal, making it more
[Clay]
More thoughts and comments?
One site that may serve as a source for more ideas is the Apache Web
Services TLP: http://ws.apache.org/.
Glen
Very nice--I like the xmlgraphics logo, and the layout of the text is
well done. I think in general having fewer pages but of higher quality
is preferable.
Glen
Clay Leeds wrote:
On Oct 9, 2004, at 1:30 AM, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
snip what=wiki-stuff
While we're talking about volunteers, when
