Robert Treat wrote:
> You are both putting the cart before the horse. Go read the archives and
> you'll find that we already have several new design floating around for
> the site....
You are completely missing the point here. I am not proposing a new design as
a) postgresql.org does not have "a design" now. Whatever it has, should be
called by a different (4-letter probably) word.
b) I am not a designer, I am PHP programmer, with some Open Source projects too
What I proposed were the simple --- I prototyped them in an hour's work ---
> The primary goal of the site right now is to get Andreas
> translation code working so we can start using that, then implement a
> new design that works with that.
Is it the stuff within the 'portal' dir, with the last commit 2 months ago?
> At a minimum before any significant
> redesign we need to modify the existing pages to work from central
> defined layout functions rather than using hardcoded html like so many
> of the pages do now. (Incidentally I did start coding this up awhile
> back, but did not implement it due to the groups desire to get Andreas
> code done).
I looked at the current code, "messy" is the most polite word I have for this.
Nonetheless, my experience tells me that moving common HTML to header and footer
files will take, like, 2 hours at most. Including a tea-break.
I *may* have volunteered for this, but after this discussion have a feeling that
outside contributions are NOT welcome. Fine with me, and probably fine with the
> Also this conversation is fairly off-topic for this group, and more
> importantly having the discussion here excludes several people who
> should be included in it.
Are these the same people who have to approve my subscription to pgsql-www?..
In response to
pgsql-advocacy by date
|Next:||From: Alexey Borzov||Date: 2004-01-13 22:26:14|
|Subject: Re: Website and "open development"|
|Previous:||From: Joshua D. Drake||Date: 2004-01-13 17:58:32|
|Subject: Re: Postgress and MYSQL|