stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "mark.g.brown" <>
Subject Re: [RFC] Apache "look and feel" for stdcxx docs
Date Thu, 30 Aug 2007 01:25:50 GMT
Marc Betz wrote:
> I'd be pleased as punch to expand the zip file if I could figure out how
> to do that. If there is a way on google pages, I haven't found it. 

For whatever it's worth, I couldn't find a way to upload more than one
file at a time. With just a handful of files it's not a big deal but I
wouldn't want to do it for all those in the zip file.

I unpacked the zip file locally and quickly skimmed the contents in my
browser. It looks as though the changes are isolated to the logo and
the copyright notice at the bottom of each page. Oh, I almost missed
the Welcome! page. Or is there anything else?

-- Mark

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Sebor [] 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 9:13 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [RFC] Apache "look and feel" for stdcxx docs
> Marc,
> Before I respond to your points below, let me suggest that you might
> want to follow Mark's example and expand the .zip file so that people
> can easily preview your changes on your page without having to download
> and expand it themselves. Here's Mark's demo of an otherwise unrelated
> documentation project:
> Martin
> Marc Betz wrote:
>> Hi, everyone,
>> Here is my take on the feedback returned on my changes to the
>> documentation:
>> - RE banner: I am entirely agreeable to a prettier banner, but that 
>>   request needs the talents of a graphics designer. That is most
>>   definitely not me. Does anyone know of one willing to contribute a
>>   bit of time?
>> - RE collapsible TOC in navigation pane: this would require
> JavaScript. 
>>   We have not used JavaScript at Rogue Wave so I don't know anything 
>> about
>>   it, although I imagine I could pick it up pretty quickly, at least 
>> for
>>   something as common as this. We do not use JavaScript because our 
>> documentation
>>   has always deliberately used very plain vanilla HTML to guarantee it
>> will
>>   display well in any browser. Myself, I would suggest keeping it that
>> way.
>> - RE buttons: these do not play much part in the frame view, but they 
>> are
>>   needed in the No Frames view. We could, of course, just forget about
>> the
>>   No Frames view, but I think there are still those who prefer it.
>> - RE incomplete sample: you can get a complete copy of both the 
>> reference
>>   and user guides by downloading the zip archive at: 
>>   I would just have put a viewable version up there except I cannot 
>>   figure out how to upload multiple files, and I am certainly not
> going 
>>   to do it one at a time.
>> I would like to suggest that we commit these documents as they are 
>> currently so I can get busy on cleansing the documents of references 
>> to Rogue Wave, SourcePro, and modules. Then we can fiddle with the 
>> format some more later.
>> Is that agreeable? If so, could someone do it?
>> Marc
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Martin Sebor [] On Behalf Of Martin Sebor
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 9:41 PM
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: [RFC] Apache "look and feel" for stdcxx docs
>> Liviu Nicoara wrote:
>>> Martin Sebor wrote:
>>>> Liviu Nicoara wrote:
>>>>> Martin Sebor wrote:
>>>> Which list? Is there any project that you liked in particular?
>>> the most.
>> You mean the top banner? I like it okay but I like some others better.
>> If I had to pick one it would probably be Maven (
>> Not necessarily the graphic on the right but the overall design of the
>> banner.
>>>> FWIW, I like the Web interface to the Standard C++ Library 
>>>> documentation for IBM XLC/C++ 9.0, especially the expandable 
>>>> navigation frame on the left.
>>> Yes, functionally it is complete and it provides a good user
>> experience.
>>>  From an aesthetic point of view it could use a bit of color -- 
>>> perhaps a comfortable, subtly colored background, more eye-pleasing
>> icons, etc.
>> Sure. That's always a matter of personal preference but I agree that 
>> the predominant black/white/gray makes it a little dull.
>>> Also, it wouldn't hurt to have browser-neutral html as advocated
> here:
>> I agree. That shouldn't be something new, though. AFAICT, we're 
>> already there.
>>> E.g., my Firefox renders IBM's site poorly (overlapping text, frames,
>>> etc.).
>> I don't see any serious problems in my browsers (Seamonkey 1.0.9 or 
>> FireFox but I can imagine that the navigation tree might 
>> give some browsers trouble. We're also constrained by Marc's schedule 
>> as to how fancy we can get in these improvements.
>> Martin

View raw message