Re: GTK+ Website Review - Hosting Windows Binaries

[Murray Cumming <murrayc@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 15:05 +0000, Martyn Russell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I will be posting my final review of the gtk.org pages in the coming few
> weeks and I wanted people's opinions on a few things.
> 
> 1. Would anyone object to putting the Windows binaries on the gtk.org
> site instead of Tor's site? It makes sense to me to have it there. Tor,
> any input here?
> 
> 2. With regards to the FAQ, is there a burning need to have this in a
> docbook format? Currently it is a mess and I am thinking of reforming
> it, but before I do, I wonder if we should just put it completely in
> HTML and as part of the website. Is there any need for us to put it in
> PDF or any other format, really?

HTML is slightly more likely to be kept-up-to-date than DocBook.
However, no FAQ is likely to be kept up to date unless it's very easy to
edit/comment.

> 3. Do we really need a gtk 1.2 FAQ? If not, I will remove the cruft from
> the FAQ that is no longer pertinent.

Sounds good.

-- 
murrayc@xxxxxxxxxxx
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com

_______________________________________________
gtk-devel-list mailing list
gtk-devel-list@xxxxxxxxx
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list