Re: GTK+ Website Review - Hosting Windows Binaries
- Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 20:22:41 +0200
- From: Mohammed Sameer <msameer@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: GTK+ Website Review - Hosting Windows Binaries
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 09:44:01AM +0000, Martyn Russell wrote: > Murray Cumming wrote: > > 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. > > Well, given the new site has proper CSS and HTML separation, editing the > FAQ will be no harder to edit than the docbook SGML. Why not a CMS then ? No flame please. Just wondering... -- GPG-Key: 0xA3FD0DF7 - 9F73 032E EAC9 F7AD 951F 280E CB66 8E29 A3FD 0DF7 Debian User and Developer. Homepage: www.foolab.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@xxxxxxxxx http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: GTK+ Website Review - Hosting Windows Binaries
- From: Martyn Russell
- Re: GTK+ Website Review - Hosting Windows Binaries
- References:
- GTK+ Website Review - Hosting Windows Binaries
- From: Martyn Russell
- Re: GTK+ Website Review - Hosting Windows Binaries
- From: Murray Cumming
- Re: GTK+ Website Review - Hosting Windows Binaries
- From: Martyn Russell
- GTK+ Website Review - Hosting Windows Binaries
- Prev by Date: Re: l10n/i18n issue in gvfs [and glib]
- Next by Date: Re: Extended Layout Summary
- Previous by thread: Re: GTK+ Website Review - Hosting Windows Binaries
- Next by thread: Re: GTK+ Website Review - Hosting Windows Binaries
- Index(es):