Consider it under the ASL =:0)
http://apache.org/LICENSE
My favorite motto is by Devo: Duty now for the future.
Mainguy, Mike wrote:
Ted, I may adopt the last line of this email to be my signature as it
accurately reflects my experience with IT.
No matter what we use today, sooner or later I'm
Robert Leland wrote:
Joe:
Thanks, I was hoping you would chime in ! It looks like you used maven
for your site, and I prefer your color scheme over the standard...
Which is here, if anyone was wondering:
http://demo.jgsullivan.com/struts/
-T.
Joe Germuska wrote:
It will be some mildly tedious work to move the current doc to xdocs,
but nothing too bad, and if they are valid xhtml, it will be much easier.
The documentation is all XML now. Steve was just tweaking the XLS.
There's a bit of HTML/XHTML in the sample applications, but
Ted Husted wrote:
Joe Germuska wrote:
It will be some mildly tedious work to move the current doc to xdocs,
but nothing too bad, and if they are valid xhtml, it will be much
easier.
The documentation is all XML now. Steve was just tweaking the XLS.
There's a bit of HTML/XHTML in the sample
I don't actually care, and, lacking a basis of comparison, I don't
even know if what we have now is broken. Will Maven or Forrest be
less work? If so, great. Personally, I don't care about the look
and feel issues. It looks the way it looks. I just want to know if
it will make better use of
Visually, I'm not a huge fan of either system's default LF, but I don't
dislike either of them enough to vote -1 on that basis. My
understanding
is that there is some room for customization with either, though, if we
wanted to expend the effort to manage our own LF.
The argument for
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, Joe Germuska wrote:
One big gain from going to Maven is that it makes the barrier to
working with the code very low. Long-time committers may not
remember so well, but it takes a fair bit of configuration to get a
Struts build working. Meanwhile, Maven downloads all the
David Graham wrote:
I was under the impression that the blue/grey lf was the new Jakarta
standard that sites would be moving to. Maybe it's just the default Maven
lf that no one ever bothered to customize. Both the Maven and Forrest
lf are fine with me; I'm just a big fan of consistency so if
Robert Leland wrote:
I am strongly in favor of moving to maven now, and will help where I
can.
My only concern is that we continue to view Struts 1.x as being
evolutionary mode. If we have a consensus on this point, then we should
all be careful that we do nothing that will break the build or
: September 5, 2003 10:43 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Struts web site [was: Re: Conversion of web site docs to XHTML]
Steve Raeburn wrote:
I have committed the first step in transitioning the web site
documentation
to valid XHTML.
As far as I know we were planning to move
Robert Leland wrote:
Do we want to hold a formal vote/lazy consensus on what doc
system we are moving to ?
Don already put the Struts SourceForge site on Forrest, so I would lean
in that direction.
http://struts.sourceforge.net/
http://xml.apache.org/forrest/
-Ted.
--- Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robert Leland wrote:
Do we want to hold a formal vote/lazy consensus on what doc
system we are moving to ?
Don already put the Struts SourceForge site on Forrest, so I would lean
in that direction.
Does Forrest require that look and feel? If
of web site docs to
XHTML]
--- Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robert Leland wrote:
Do we want to hold a formal vote/lazy consensus on what doc
system we are moving to ?
Don already put the Struts SourceForge site on Forrest, so I would lean
in that direction.
Does
Robert Leland wrote:
Steve Raeburn wrote:
I have committed the first step in transitioning the web site
documentation
to valid XHTML.
As far as I know we were planning to move over to Maven or forrest.
I have been working on Mavenizing items as I can.
Instead of doing the stylesheets maybe
site [was: Re: Conversion of web site docs to
XHTML]
--- Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robert Leland wrote:
Do we want to hold a formal vote/lazy consensus on what doc
system we are moving to ?
Don already put the Struts SourceForge site on Forrest, so I would lean
in that direction
-Original Message-
From: Robert Leland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 2:16 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Re: Struts web site [was: Re: Conversion of web site
docs to XHTML]
Robert Leland wrote:
Steve Raeburn wrote:
I have committed
At 14:23 -0400 9/6/03, Robert Leland wrote:
We can always start a struts-2 web site and tweak it until we like
what we have,
or until it works, which ever comes first ! I also wouldn't want to
maintain a seperate
look and feel except to move the blasted [powered by Maven] icon
to the bottom
Joe Germuska wrote:
At 14:23 -0400 9/6/03, Robert Leland wrote:
We can always start a struts-2 web site and tweak it until we like
what we have,
or until it works, which ever comes first ! I also wouldn't want to
maintain a seperate
look and feel except to move the blasted [powered by
.
Steve
-Original Message-
From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: September 6, 2003 11:13 AM
To: Struts Developers List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Struts web site [was: Re: Conversion of web site docs to
XHTML]
On Sat, 6 Sep 2003, David Graham wrote:
Date: Sat
Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
Or, to put it another way, using Maven as a
build system will give us a website/docs publishing system for free.
Well, last I knew, TANSTAAFL. =:)
It's nice that Maven has a build system, so long as it's a build system
that fits our needs. Likewise, it's nice that
--- Steve Raeburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have committed the first step in transitioning the web site
documentation
to valid XHTML.
All documents should now validate as XHTML 1.0 Transitional. If any have
slipped through the net, please feel free to let me know.
Next steps:
-
-Original Message-
From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: September 5, 2003 4:29 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Re: Conversion of web site docs to XHTML
Are you sure about this? Are you saying that
pulliblah/li/ul/p
is invalid?
David
I'm afraid so. p can
FYI, even looking back at HTML 4.0, p could only contain inline elements.
http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-html40-19980424/struct/text.html#edef-P
That's what I love about this job - you never stop finding out you've been
doing it all wrong :-)
Steve
Steve Raeburn wrote:
I have committed the first step in transitioning the web site documentation
to valid XHTML.
As far as I know we were planning to move over to Maven or forrest.
I have been working on Mavenizing items as I can.
Instead of doing the stylesheets maybe your efforts
could be
24 matches
Mail list logo
