On 14 Dec 2008, at 18:33, Andy Wardley wrote:
Léon Brocard wrote:
Andy, care to put your changes live?
All checked in. It'll need to be built on the target machine.
What remains for this shininess to be made live?
- Mark
On 18 Dec 2008, at 11:46, Jonathan Stowe wrote:
2008/12/18 Mark Blackman m...@blackmans.org:
On 14 Dec 2008, at 18:33, Andy Wardley wrote:
Léon Brocard wrote:
Andy, care to put your changes live?
All checked in. It'll need to be built on the target machine.
What remains for this
Mark Blackman wrote:
What remains for this shininess to be made live?
The gate keeper of the London.pm fortress hath just this hour granted
me access after much wrangling with the dragons of ssh and walls of fire.
Verily now that I have entered shall I proceed to make shiny the castle
walls.
2008/12/14 Nicholas Clark n...@ccl4.org:
And if I know that you contribute back it's far more likely that I'll
investigate your bug reports straight away, rather than putting them off.
For example, that's why Andy got a very full initial answer very quickly.
Mind you, some people
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 21:20:05 +, David Cantrell wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 09:17:12PM +, Dominic Thoreau wrote:
If you could guarantee that full-blown machines would be all that
was ever used, maybe. But this is simply not true. Plus the dot
pitch is different, which can really
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 8:57 PM, Andy Wardley a...@wardley.org wrote:
Nigel Rantor wrote:
I've already poked Andy about this when he put up the initial version.
Here's my reply to Nigel, for the benefit of anyone else interested.
reply
Yes. I've always been a fluid-layout kinda guy.
Paul Makepeace wrote:
I'd aim for 950-ish width - not much of a sacrifice from 1024
aolMe Too!/aol
960 is a particularly magical number because it's divisible by 1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 16, 20 and 24, so it's a good start for grid-based
designs, or anything with columns. And as you
Léon Brocard wrote:
Andy, care to put your changes live?
All checked in. It'll need to be built on the target machine.
I've added 3 more colour schemes (light brown, teal and purple) for those
who find the orange a bit too garish. I've also added a print stylesheet.
The stylesheet switcher
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 06:33:34PM +, Andy Wardley wrote:
I've added 3 more colour schemes (light brown, teal and purple) for those
who find the orange a bit too garish. I've also added a print stylesheet.
Heresy!
Whilst we fully support there's more than one way to do it, the
Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 06:33:34PM +, Andy Wardley wrote:
I've added 3 more colour schemes (light brown, teal and purple) for those
who find the orange a bit too garish. I've also added a print stylesheet.
Heresy!
Whilst we fully support there's more than one way
On Sun, 2008-12-14 at 19:35 +, Nigel Rantor wrote:
Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 06:33:34PM +, Andy Wardley wrote:
I've added 3 more colour schemes (light brown, teal and purple) for those
who find the orange a bit too garish. I've also added a print stylesheet.
Jonathan Stowe wrote:
I think you meant I would submit patches - strange how sometimes your
keyboard goes wrong like that.
No Jonathan, I don't mean that.
At all.
If I meant that I would have said it. Do you see?
And I object to this attitude that one is not allowed to voice their
opinion
Nigel Rantor wrote:
I've already poked Andy about this when he put up the initial version.
Here's my reply to Nigel, for the benefit of anyone else interested.
reply
Yes. I've always been a fluid-layout kinda guy. 800x600 is annoyingly
narrow when you've got a large monitor, so a fluid
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 07:35:42PM +, Nigel Rantor wrote:
If it was a site I actively used I would complain loudly and vociferously.
As it is, I don't. So I won't.
I've already poked Andy about this when he put up the initial version.
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 08:48:43PM +, Nigel
Nicholas Clark wrote:
Whilst we fully support there's more than one way to do it, the availability
of different hues of orange should provide more than enough alternatives. :-)
Aha! Well the brown design *is* actually orange! It's exactly the same hue
as the orange (30 deg), but de-saturated
2008/12/14 Andy Wardley a...@wardley.org:
But these days, it's considered officially OK to assume that 1024x768 is
the lowest common denominator for screen width, which gives you a nicely
sized
bit of content-space to play with. Making it fluid upwards of that tends to
result in wide wide
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 09:17:12PM +, Dominic Thoreau wrote:
On ultra-portable netbooks (like my Eee) and on mobile phones, this
sort of approach can make navigation impossible.
If you could guarantee that full-blown machines would be all that was
ever used, maybe. But this is simply
Andy Wardley wrote:
Nigel Rantor wrote:
I've already poked Andy about this when he put up the initial version.
Here's my reply to Nigel, for the benefit of anyone else interested.
reply
Yes. I've always been a fluid-layout kinda guy. 800x600 is annoyingly
narrow when you've got a large
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 09:24:05PM +, Andy Wardley wrote:
I welcome testing, feedback and comments, both good and bad. But it is
worth bearing in mind that this is voluntary work and any complaints that
are
*too* vociferous may fall on deaf ears. Or be met with directions to the
19 matches
Mail list logo
