On Fri, 24 Jan 2003, Kurt Schrader wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jan 2003, Henri Yandell wrote: > > > This is fine. The problem for Jakarta is that the Maven generated websites > > do not fit the existing L&F. Downloads, sibling projects, general info are > > all missing or setup in different ways. > > The problem for Jakarta is that there is no existing look and feel. > Compare: > http://jakarta.apache.org/ > http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine/ > http://jakarta.apache.org/poi/ The POI one is new to me. But there is an existing look and feel, the front page and many old projects which adhere to that, there is a newcoming look and feel which is completely loose, all the maven projects sprouting up [turbine being one of those], and there's occasional oddballs like poi. My suggestion is simply to standardise the maven projects. That'll do far more for maven I think than trying to take over the whole Jakarta website [which is what will probably happen if the maven sites are good enough]. > > If all of Jakarta were to be mandated to be built in the same way etc, > > Forrest would be the way to go. > > That seems kind of arbitrary to me. The current Maven document generator I don't think it's an important point. If Forrest can fulfill its aim, it'd be good if Jakarta was to be mandated as a similar l&f. Instead Jakarta is far more likely to remain a loose federation. The primary problem is not that Jakarta has different looks and feels, but that all the Maven generated sites that are starting to crop up have no great common structure. It reflects very poorly on Maven. Hen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
