On Thursday 09 February 2006 18:17, Martijn Faassen wrote:
>
> Yes. Let's make a procedure for that:
>
> * find the document you think would be good to have
>
> * propose it on this list
>
http://www.jrandolph.com/blog/?p=23#comment-324
has a good comment with good links.
http://zissue.berlios.d
> Something like http://plone.org/products?
Why not? If it fits the bill.
>
> > zope.org should not be a member login based site IMNSHO.
>
> Why not have a members.zope.org that is a community site, with wikis and
> the lot, where the community can play their games, and a zope3.org and/or
On Feb 9, 2006, at 5:26 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Why not have a members.zope.org that is a community
> site, with wikis and the lot, where the community can
> play their games, and a zope3.org and/or a zope.org
> that is the outward facing part of the community,
> much more tightly controlled fo
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 14:28:22 -, Andrew Sawyers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 14:09 +0100, Max M wrote:
Chris Withers wrote:
If we cannot make it work in Zope 2 or 3, maybe we should use rails ;-)
I know Max is kidding; but to comment to Chris. One of the main
prob
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 13:00:43 -, Chris Withers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Tonico Strasser wrote:
IMHO, the most important change for reducing visual design complexity,
is to get rid of the /Members section, including log in/log out, and
the whole TTW content management system.
I think
On 2/9/06, Andrew Sawyers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 14:28 +0100, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> > But other than that, I think we should
> > focus on having a zope3.org.
> A zope.org and zope3.org?
Yup.
--
Lennart Regebro, Nuxeo http://www.nuxeo.com/
CPS Content Management
baiju m schrieb:
On 2/9/06, Michael Haubenwallner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd like to split up the 'about' section a bit further and want to
reintroduce the 'microsites' idea.
This will be good, but I think no need of creating directories
under 'zopeweb/content/about/'
for example, what
On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 00:05 +, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Hi Martijn,
>
>
> I would say, let's not bite off more than we can chew. Getting a punch
> web-site is not easy. The hard part is reducing the amount of content, not
> creating it. I'd say focus on Zope 3 for now - it's what we want t
On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 14:09 +0100, Max M wrote:
> Chris Withers wrote:
>
>
> If we cannot make it work in Zope 2 or 3, maybe we should use rails ;-)
>
I know Max is kidding; but to comment to Chris. One of the main
problems to avoid is 'kruft' and bit-rot. zope.org suffers this to the
point o
On 2/9/06, Michael Haubenwallner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like to split up the 'about' section a bit further and want to
> reintroduce the 'microsites' idea.
This will be good, but I think no need of creating directories
under 'zopeweb/content/about/'
for example, what about moving conten
On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 14:28 +0100, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> But other than that, I think we should
> focus on having a zope3.org.
A zope.org and zope3.org?
Andrew
> ___
> Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
> http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zo
On 2/9/06, Martijn Faassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm still hopeful we can at least swap out zope.org's frontpage and
> initial pages with something better that describes both Zope 2, Zope 3,
> and its relationship. Quite a bit of text is already written that
> attempts that which is in codes
Chris Withers wrote:
Tonico Strasser wrote:
IMHO, the most important change for reducing visual design
complexity, is to get rid of the /Members section, including log
in/log out, and the whole TTW content management system.
I think it's much easier to add and update content with SVN. (This
Tonico Strasser wrote:
IMHO, the most important change for reducing visual design complexity,
is to get rid of the /Members section, including log in/log out, and the
whole TTW content management system.
I think it's much easier to add and update content with SVN. (This would
also effectively
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Besides brochure-style information, I'm less confident about presenting
up to date documentation on Zope 2, however. If we get people to edit
the Zope 2 documentation for inclusion, then I'm all for it. I have my
doubts that we'll get enough community interest in doing so
baiju m wrote:
Hi,
How to run a webstie using these ReST files ?
http://codespeak.net/svn/z3/zopeweb/trunk/
I think worldcookery.com and tiks.org are running using ReST and Zope 3.
Are we planning to use any of these?
Some thoughts on what you could do localy with the SVN checkout ::
I'd like to split up the 'about' section a bit further and want to
reintroduce the 'microsites' idea.
'About/Zope Technology' (currently at
http://codespeak.net/svn/z3/zopeweb/trunk/content/about/about.txt)
would be one main section of the 'About' area::
- Zope Technology
- Microsites
On Feb 9, 2006, at 11:22 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Mark Pratt wrote:
[snip]
If the idea is to deliver the message that Zope 3 is great,
clutting the message with Zope 2 cruft (not the same as if we
have some really great zope 2 documentation, but what's there
has rotted quite a bit) is
Hi,
How to run a webstie using these ReST files ?
http://codespeak.net/svn/z3/zopeweb/trunk/
I think worldcookery.com and tiks.org are running using ReST and Zope 3.
Are we planning to use any of these?
Thanks,
Baiju M
___
Zope-web maillist - Zop
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Hi Martijn,
* are we going to target Zope 3 only with this site, or Zope 2 as
well? I wrote text to cover both, as Zope 2 is currently the
breadwinner of most of us. I think we can get enthusiasm more
easily for Zope 3 however; nobody is going
Mark Pratt wrote:
[snip]
If the idea is to deliver the message that Zope 3 is great, clutting
the message with Zope 2 cruft (not the same as if we have some really
great zope 2 documentation, but what's there has rotted quite a bit)
is not likely to help. Maybe we can (and should) get there
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Hi Martijn,
* are we going to target Zope 3 only with this site, or Zope 2 as
well? I wrote text to cover both, as Zope 2 is currently the
breadwinner of most of us. I think we can get enthusiasm more easily
for Zope 3 however; nobody is going to write Zope 2 tutorials
Hi,
Just one point.
On Feb 9, 2006, at 9:47 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 04:17:25 -, baiju m
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think we can have these kind of documentation:
Documentation
-
- Zope 3 Tutorial
- Zope 2 Tutorial (Using Five and so lead the user to
Followup to:
zope web status report 2006-02-06
http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-web/2006-February/003676.html
Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Do we really want to add to the confusion by throwing in old Zope 2
> documentation, that still refers to Zope 2.6 and has one gazillion very
> confusing in-li
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 04:17:25 -, baiju m <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think we can have these kind of documentation:
Documentation
-
- Zope 3 Tutorial
- Zope 2 Tutorial (Using Five and so lead the user towards Zope3)
- What's new in {Zope2|3|CMF|Five} releases
- ZopeBook (Zope 2
25 matches
Mail list logo
