You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to modperl@perl.apache.org by Stas Bekman <st...@stason.org> on 2002/07/12 18:29:38 UTC
ANNOUNCE: the new perl.apache.org is alive now!
As you may know, the work on the new mod_perl site started in
September 2001, and after almost a year we are glad to present to you
the outcome of this work at the expected location:
http://perl.apache.org/
and say "good bye" to the old site, which has now retired, but still can
be retrieved from http://cvs.apache.org/snapshots/modperl-site/.
This new site is a result of a collaborative effort of the mod_perl
community. Thank you all! Without you the new site won't be as good as
it is now.
Special acknowledgements go to the following folks:
Allan Juul
Bill Moseley
Jonathan M. Hollin
Per Einar Ellefsen
Thomas Klausner
The new mod_perl site's goal wasn't only to create a nice design, but
mainly to improve its documentation organization and navigation aspects,
because of the ever-growing amount of documentation that the mod_perl
community generates.
One of the important new features is that any documentation
modifications are now almost instant, so you don't have to wait for the
next guide's release to get the latest fixes and improvements. We also
hope that the new site will bring more contributors to the documentation.
You will find the mod_perl documentation under
http://perl.apache.org/docs/ which is split into sections specific to
mod_perl 1.0 and 2.0, and a section for general docs which apply to any
mod_perl generation. Under each generation specific you will find
another separation for user documents, core developers, API and
OS-specific docs, which didn't fit into general docs. The new tutorials
sections sports a few interesting features, which aren't strictly
mod_perl but very useful to most mod_perlers.
And of course we now have the feature: "What's mod_perl":
http://perl.apache.org/start/index.html, which is our "newbie
orientation" procedure, which they hopefully find useful.
If you would like to build the site locally, read:
http://perl.apache.org/download/docs.html
If you have any questions regarding the use of the new site, read:
http://perl.apache.org/help/help_with_site.html
For other questions see:
http://perl.apache.org/help/index.html
I'd like to point your attention to the 'Short Cuts' menu on the left,
which I hope you will find useful. The main menu includes the 'Site
Map' and of course use the force^H^H^H^H^Hsearch if you don't know
where to find things.
The site includes many more new features, I don't want to spoil your
(hopefully pleasant) surprises.
Enjoy your new site, mod_perlers, and please help to spread the word.
__________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org
mailto:stas@stason.org http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com
http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
Re: ANNOUNCE: the new perl.apache.org is alive now!
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com>.
Stas Bekman <st...@stason.org> writes:
> This new site is a result of a collaborative effort of the mod_perl
> community. Thank you all! Without you the new site won't be as good as
> it is now.
>
> Special acknowledgements go to the following folks:
>
> Allan Juul
> Bill Moseley
> Jonathan M. Hollin
> Per Einar Ellefsen
> Thomas Klausner
The new site is outstanding! Great work, guys!
--
Joe Schaefer
Re: [CGI] [OT] HTML to XHTML conversion
Posted by Roy Schroeder <ra...@imap4.com>.
Complete automatic conversion is not possible since someone could enter
HTML code that omits or contains certain attributes are either required
or not allowed in XHTML Transitional and the conversion program would
1. not know what value to add for required but omitted attributes, or
2. removing the "not allowed" attributes will seriously change the
rendering of the page.
Of course the simple mechanical rules -
1. all tag names in lower case
2. all tags closed
3. all attribute values quoted
4. proper tag nesting
etc.
could be automated and may be sufficient for your purposes.
Regards
Roy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan M. Hollin" <ne...@digital-word.com>
To: <mo...@perl.apache.org>
Cc: "CGI List" <cg...@jann.com>
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 8:54 AM
Subject: [CGI] [OT] HTML to XHTML conversion
> [NOTICE: see the message footer for important information]
> [OFF TOPIC]
>
> I am trying to find a module that can convert HTML to XHTML, but have
> drawn a blank on CPAN and GOOGLE. Is there anything out there to do
> this other than HTML TIDY?
>
> I am developing a mod_perl CMS application at the moment. All its
> output is compliant with XHTML Transitional. But its users can create
> content that isn't (and are likely to) and I'd like to parse this and
> convert it XHTML before it goes into the RDBMS if possible.
>
> If nothing exists along these lines - would anyone like to collaborate
> on the development of a module for this purpose? HTML::XHTML anyone?
>
>
> --
> Jonathan M. Hollin
>
> Co-ordinator: WYPUG (http://wypug.pm.org/)
>
> --
> To unusbcribe, send an email contining the words: 'unsubscribe
cgi-list' to the following email address: majordomo@jann.com
>
> Archives of the following mailing lists are available at:
http://www.perl.jann.com/
> the CGI Mailing List
> the mod_perl mailing list
> the embperl mailing list
> Searching, browsing and posting are available at
http://www.perl.jann.com/
>
Re: [OT] HTML to XHTML conversion
Posted by Ilya Martynov <il...@martynov.org>.
>>>>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 16:54:10 +0100, "Jonathan M. Hollin" <ne...@digital-word.com> said:
JMH> [OFF TOPIC]
JMH> I am trying to find a module that can convert HTML to XHTML, but have
JMH> drawn a blank on CPAN and GOOGLE. Is there anything out there to do
JMH> this other than HTML TIDY?
You can try to use XML::LibXML to parse HTML and re-output
it using XML::SAX::Writer.
Something like:
use XML::LibXML;
use XML::SAX::Writer;
use XML::LibXML::SAX::Parser;
my $html = '<html><head></head><body></body></html>';
my $writer = XML::SAX::Writer->new(Output => \*STDOUT);
my $generator = XML::LibXML::SAX::Parser->new(Handler => $writer);
my $dom = XML::LibXML->new->parse_html_string($html);
$generator->generate($dom);
--
Ilya Martynov (http://martynov.org/)
Re: [OT] HTML to XHTML conversion
Posted by Ilya Martynov <il...@martynov.org>.
>>>>> On Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:07:07 +0100, Jean-Michel Hiver <jh...@mkdoc.com> said:
JM> <body><body></body></body> is not valid XHTML for example.
JM> <input type="text" name="foo"></input> is not valid XHTML either.
JM> You have to be careful about block-level and inline elements.
Actually <input type="text" name="foo"></input> is valid XHTML.
Correct me if I'm wrong but AFAIK <xxx></xxx> is exactly equivalent to
<xxx/>.
<input type="text" name="foo">something</input> is not valid.
JM> etc. etc...
JM> Besides, you cannot use an XML parser to parse HTML. You have to use
JM> something like HTML::TreeBuilder instead. Part of HTML::Tree, excellent
JM> module IMHO.
XML::LibXML supports HTML too.
--
Ilya Martynov (http://martynov.org/)
Re: [OT] HTML to XHTML conversion
Posted by Jean-Michel Hiver <jh...@mkdoc.com>.
On Fri 23-Aug-2002 at 11:07:35AM -0500, D. Hageman wrote:
>
> My suggestion would to just use a XML parser module like XML::LibXML.
> Load the file up using the HTML loading functions and print it using the
> XML printing functions ... since the only difference I can see between
> HTML and XHMTL is that optional ending tags are no longer optional (per
> XML spec) and single tags must be ended properly (per XML spec).
There's a lot more than that.
<body><body></body></body> is not valid XHTML for example.
<input type="text" name="foo"></input> is not valid XHTML either.
You have to be careful about block-level and inline elements.
etc. etc...
Besides, you cannot use an XML parser to parse HTML. You have to use
something like HTML::TreeBuilder instead. Part of HTML::Tree, excellent
module IMHO.
Cheers,
--
IT'S TIME FOR A DIFFERENT KIND OF WEB
================================================================
Jean-Michel Hiver - Software Director
jhiver@mkdoc.com
+44 (0)114 255 8097
================================================================
VISIT HTTP://WWW.MKDOC.COM
Re: [OT] HTML to XHTML conversion
Posted by Adrian Howard <ad...@quietstars.com>.
On Friday, August 23, 2002, at 04:54 pm, Jonathan M. Hollin wrote:
> [OFF TOPIC]
>
> I am trying to find a module that can convert HTML to XHTML, but have
> drawn a blank on CPAN and GOOGLE. Is there anything out there to do
> this other than HTML TIDY?
[snip]
> If nothing exists along these lines - would anyone like to collaborate
> on the development of a module for this purpose? HTML::XHTML anyone?
>
Out of curiosity... why not tidy? It seems to do a pretty darn good job
of it - I use it all of the time.
Adrian
Re: [OT] HTML to XHTML conversion
Posted by "D. Hageman" <dh...@dracken.com>.
My suggestion would to just use a XML parser module like XML::LibXML.
Load the file up using the HTML loading functions and print it using the
XML printing functions ... since the only difference I can see between
HTML and XHMTL is that optional ending tags are no longer optional (per
XML spec) and single tags must be ended properly (per XML spec).
On Fri, 23 Aug 2002, Jonathan M. Hollin wrote:
> [OFF TOPIC]
>
> I am trying to find a module that can convert HTML to XHTML, but have
> drawn a blank on CPAN and GOOGLE. Is there anything out there to do
> this other than HTML TIDY?
>
> I am developing a mod_perl CMS application at the moment. All its
> output is compliant with XHTML Transitional. But its users can create
> content that isn't (and are likely to) and I'd like to parse this and
> convert it XHTML before it goes into the RDBMS if possible.
>
> If nothing exists along these lines - would anyone like to collaborate
> on the development of a module for this purpose? HTML::XHTML anyone?
>
>
>
--
//========================================================\\
|| D. Hageman <dh...@dracken.com> ||
\\========================================================//
RE: [OT] HTML to XHTML conversion
Posted by Jesse Erlbaum <je...@erlbaum.net>.
Hi Jonathan --
> I am trying to find a module that can convert HTML to XHTML, but have
> drawn a blank on CPAN and GOOGLE. Is there anything out there to do
> this other than HTML TIDY?
The big problem you're likely to face is that non-XHTML HTML is
inherently... well... NON-XHTML! For instance, the following will work as a
complete document on most web browsers:
----START---->
<h1>Hello World!</h1>
<----END----
To turn this into XHTML you have to make some assumptions -- such as <html>,
<head>, and <body> tags.
My example is a simple one. Depending on how broken the HTML is your module
might end up not being very reusable at all. It might start looking quite
specialized for your particular set of documents and problems as you add
more and more heuristic rules to accommodate non-XML, non-XHTML compliant
content.
Warmest regards,
-Jesse-
--
Jesse Erlbaum
The Erlbaum Group
jesse@erlbaum.net
Phone: 212-684-6161
Fax: 212-684-6226
[OT] HTML to XHTML conversion
Posted by "Jonathan M. Hollin" <ne...@digital-word.com>.
[OFF TOPIC]
I am trying to find a module that can convert HTML to XHTML, but have
drawn a blank on CPAN and GOOGLE. Is there anything out there to do
this other than HTML TIDY?
I am developing a mod_perl CMS application at the moment. All its
output is compliant with XHTML Transitional. But its users can create
content that isn't (and are likely to) and I'd like to parse this and
convert it XHTML before it goes into the RDBMS if possible.
If nothing exists along these lines - would anyone like to collaborate
on the development of a module for this purpose? HTML::XHTML anyone?
--
Jonathan M. Hollin
Co-ordinator: WYPUG (http://wypug.pm.org/)
Re: ANNOUNCE: the new perl.apache.org is alive now!
Posted by Stas Bekman <st...@stason.org>.
> fist, let me say: Great Job! the new site looks fantastic, a *vast* and
> long-awaited improvement.
;)
> i still notice, however that the *content* of the "Sites Running mod_perl"
> page doesn't seem to have been updated. about 6 months ago, i sent notices
> about two sites that we (Vanguard Media) had launched to the email address
> that used to be on that page, but they were never included.
>
> is this being actively maintained now?
Very actively.
> should i re-send now to the docs-dev mailing list?
Yes, please.
While you've raised this issue, I'd like to remind everybody that we
want your (long) success stories for:
http://perl.apache.org/outstanding/success_stories/index.html
or simply (short) reports of cool sites running mod_perl for:
http://perl.apache.org/outstanding/sites.html
__________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org
mailto:stas@stason.org http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com
http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
Re: Getting to the Guide PDF on the new website
Posted by Stas Bekman <st...@stason.org>.
Gunther Birznieks wrote:
> At 09:24 PM 7/13/2002, Stas Bekman wrote:
>
>> Gunther Birznieks wrote:
>>
>>> I agree! It is great work. It looks really slick.
>>
>>
>> :)
>>
>>> Unfortunately, the mod_perl guide documentation area has lost
>>> functionality. I wanted to download the "latest" guide before my 23
>>> hour flight to the USA (to read on the flight) and was dismayed to
>>> find hours before my flight that it is impossible to get a full HTML
>>> or full PDF download of the entire guide anymore...
>>> You can get a PDF of single pages (of which I don't know the
>>> reason?), but the guide itself is quite hard.
>>
>>
>> eh? what do you mean? it's all there, go to:
>> http://perl.apache.org/docs/1.0/guide/index.html
>> click on the pdf button in the right upper corner and you get this:
>> http://perl.apache.org/docs/1.0/guide/guide.pdf
>>
>> Notice though, that parts non-specific to mod_perl 1.0 has now moved to
>> http://perl.apache.org/docs/general/index.html
>
>
> Oh I see it does work. I suppose the PDF buttons on every page is what
> confused me though. So if you go to the front-page of the docs section,
> just the front-page gets generated in a PDF, if you go to a page within
> the guide, then just that section gets generated.
>
> The only PDF icon that actually generates a full guide (and it is
> inconsistent with what the rest of the website PDF icons do) is the
> actually guide.pdf.
>
> A "constructive" suggestion would be that the icon for PDF on the main
> guide page should explicitly say "PDF of entire guide" or something
> other than the simple PDF icons on all the other pages of the website.
>
> Or perhaps remove the PDF icons entirely off the rest of the website.
> After all, who really wants to generate a PDF of a single HTML page they
> already read?
Well, if you don't want to read the PDF of a single page, that doesn't
mean that others think the same. People like reading of the paper and
not the screen.
The new site is based on docsets stacking. Each root node includes
chapters and other docsets. Each root node builds the pdf of all its
immediate leaf nodes (chapters). Each leaf (chapter) builds a pdf of
itself. Notice that root nodes do *not* include chapters included in the
nested docsets, otherwise the very root pdf will be of 50MB in size.
I don't really follow your confusion. If you read the chapter 'help' and
you click on the pdf icon you get this chapter in pdf. if you are
reading the index page and click on the pdf you get the whole thing.
It's just more flexible now than it used to be.
I guess the only confusion might be with docsets that include no
chapters, but only other docsets, so if you click on the pdf icon at
/docs/1.0/ you get an almost empty pdf. But I guess people will learn
how things work and find the infrastructure useful.
__________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org
mailto:stas@stason.org http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com
http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
Getting to the Guide PDF on the new website
Posted by Gunther Birznieks <gu...@extropia.com>.
At 09:24 PM 7/13/2002, Stas Bekman wrote:
>Gunther Birznieks wrote:
>>I agree! It is great work. It looks really slick.
>
>:)
>
>>Unfortunately, the mod_perl guide documentation area has lost
>>functionality. I wanted to download the "latest" guide before my 23 hour
>>flight to the USA (to read on the flight) and was dismayed to find hours
>>before my flight that it is impossible to get a full HTML or full PDF
>>download of the entire guide anymore...
>>You can get a PDF of single pages (of which I don't know the reason?),
>>but the guide itself is quite hard.
>
>eh? what do you mean? it's all there, go to:
>http://perl.apache.org/docs/1.0/guide/index.html
>click on the pdf button in the right upper corner and you get this:
>http://perl.apache.org/docs/1.0/guide/guide.pdf
>
>Notice though, that parts non-specific to mod_perl 1.0 has now moved to
>http://perl.apache.org/docs/general/index.html
Oh I see it does work. I suppose the PDF buttons on every page is what
confused me though. So if you go to the front-page of the docs section,
just the front-page gets generated in a PDF, if you go to a page within the
guide, then just that section gets generated.
The only PDF icon that actually generates a full guide (and it is
inconsistent with what the rest of the website PDF icons do) is the
actually guide.pdf.
A "constructive" suggestion would be that the icon for PDF on the main
guide page should explicitly say "PDF of entire guide" or something other
than the simple PDF icons on all the other pages of the website.
Or perhaps remove the PDF icons entirely off the rest of the website. After
all, who really wants to generate a PDF of a single HTML page they already
read?
>__________________________________________________________________
>Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker
>http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org
>mailto:stas@stason.org http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com
>http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
>
__________________________________________________
Gunther Birznieks (gunther.birznieks@eXtropia.com)
eXtropia - The Open Web Technology Company
http://www.eXtropia.com/
Office: (65) 64791172 Mobile: (65) 96218290
Re: ANNOUNCE: the new perl.apache.org is alive now!
Posted by Stas Bekman <st...@stason.org>.
Gunther Birznieks wrote:
> I agree! It is great work. It looks really slick.
:)
> Unfortunately, the mod_perl guide documentation area has lost
> functionality. I wanted to download the "latest" guide before my 23 hour
> flight to the USA (to read on the flight) and was dismayed to find hours
> before my flight that it is impossible to get a full HTML or full PDF
> download of the entire guide anymore...
>
> You can get a PDF of single pages (of which I don't know the reason?),
> but the guide itself is quite hard.
eh? what do you mean? it's all there, go to:
http://perl.apache.org/docs/1.0/guide/index.html
click on the pdf button in the right upper corner and you get this:
http://perl.apache.org/docs/1.0/guide/guide.pdf
Notice though, that parts non-specific to mod_perl 1.0 has now moved to
http://perl.apache.org/docs/general/index.html
__________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org
mailto:stas@stason.org http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com
http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
Re: ANNOUNCE: the new perl.apache.org is alive now!
Posted by Chris <ch...@prather.org>.
> Agreed 100%, my fonts suck too :( When I've changed the font-family to
> pick the good fonts on linux, users on other platforms didn't like
> that.
>
> We were thinking to try removing font-family completely. Does anybody
> know of any problems with this approach?
>
You could always drop back to the idea of "serif" and "sans-serif" and
leave it at that.
-Chris
--
"[A] Genuinely skillful use of obscenities is uniformly absent on the
Internet." -Karl Kleinpaste
Re: specfiyng font-family or not
Posted by Stas Bekman <st...@stason.org>.
allan wrote:
> Stas Bekman wrote:
>
>>>plusses for maintaining specifying the font-families
>>>---------------------------------------------------
>>>+ we can keep on using more than one font-family
>>
>>the only real problem here, is that the order preferences vary from
>>platform to platform.
>>
>>
>>>+ we can keep on with a site that will have the same look & feel everywhere
>>>+ user can still 100% override with his own settings or stylesheet
>>
>>any numbers on how many do this? I doubt that anybody does that in reality.
>
>
> individual stylesheets are mostly a userbillity subject i guess. not
> many does that probably but many would use the overriding facilties of
> fonts in their browser why else would the browser houses eleaborate
> that feature so much?.
That's a wrong question IMHO. If something is marketed as customizable,
it doesn't necessarily means that it's useful. IMHO, the right question
to ask is whether this feature is actually used. I've asked for that
question for a simple reason that I don't use it and have no idea how it
can be made useful to me. Do you use it?
>>What about the suggestion of simply specifying Serif or San-Serif and fixed?
>
>
> but what about the navigation-font-family then? leading to another
> question, which fonts looks pixelated on said linux distribution, all
> of them ?
e.g. menu fonts on Mozilla. Look at the attached snapshot.
> also, what about consistency to the navigation-images that uses verdana?
>
> what about consistency to the manual?
what do you mean?
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> is helvetica bad? I've tuned the guide to use:
>
> font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif;
>
> after suggestions from users, and nobody has complained since.
>
> Also this is the fixed font used:
>
> font-family: courier new, courier, monospace;
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> bascially i am -1 for the change, i like the current _design_ of
> which the fonts are a major part. they are "tested"/approved for at
> least half a year on many different browsers/platforms by people on
> this list.
>
>
> still if people are +1 for this change i won't personally mind.
I'm +1 if it improves the whole thing since it was a "new" suggestion we
haven't tested. Otherwise I can live with the current setup.
__________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org
mailto:stas@stason.org http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com
http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
Re: specfiyng font-family or not
Posted by allan <la...@inet.uni2.dk>.
Stas Bekman wrote:
> > plusses for maintaining specifying the font-families
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> > + we can keep on using more than one font-family
>
> the only real problem here, is that the order preferences vary from
> platform to platform.
>
> > + we can keep on with a site that will have the same look & feel everywhere
> > + user can still 100% override with his own settings or stylesheet
>
> any numbers on how many do this? I doubt that anybody does that in reality.
individual stylesheets are mostly a userbillity subject i guess. not
many does that probably but many would use the overriding facilties of
fonts in their browser why else would the browser houses eleaborate
that feature so much?.
> What about the suggestion of simply specifying Serif or San-Serif and fixed?
but what about the navigation-font-family then? leading to another
question, which fonts looks pixelated on said linux distribution, all
of them ?
also, what about consistency to the navigation-images that uses verdana?
what about consistency to the manual?
--------------------------------------------------------------
is helvetica bad? I've tuned the guide to use:
font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif;
after suggestions from users, and nobody has complained since.
Also this is the fixed font used:
font-family: courier new, courier, monospace;
--------------------------------------------------------------
bascially i am -1 for the change, i like the current _design_ of
which the fonts are a major part. they are "tested"/approved for at
least half a year on many different browsers/platforms by people on
this list.
still if people are +1 for this change i won't personally mind.
./allan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-dev-unsubscribe@perl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-dev-help@perl.apache.org
Re: specfiyng font-family or not
Posted by Stas Bekman <st...@stason.org>.
> i think it's a big decission to skip the font-families, so let's try
> to sum up what we can think of and agree on, of plusses by doing
> either thing. then we can easily pick the best solution
>
>
> here's a starting point.
>
>
> plusses for NOT specifying font-families
> ----------------------------------------
> + fonts almost guaranteed to be good and useable on all computers by default
> + fonts can be 100% customizied for a single user/browser
> ...
>
>
> plusses for maintaining specifying the font-families
> ---------------------------------------------------
> + we can keep on using more than one font-family
the only real problem here, is that the order preferences vary from
platform to platform.
> + we can keep on with a site that will have the same look & feel everywhere
> + user can still 100% override with his own settings or stylesheet
any numbers on how many do this? I doubt that anybody does that in reality.
What about the suggestion of simply specifying Serif or San-Serif and fixed?
__________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org
mailto:stas@stason.org http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com
http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-dev-unsubscribe@perl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-dev-help@perl.apache.org
specfiyng font-family or not
Posted by allan <la...@inet.uni2.dk>.
hi
i think it's a big decission to skip the font-families, so let's try
to sum up what we can think of and agree on, of plusses by doing
either thing. then we can easily pick the best solution
here's a starting point.
plusses for NOT specifying font-families
----------------------------------------
+ fonts almost guaranteed to be good and useable on all computers by default
+ fonts can be 100% customizied for a single user/browser
...
plusses for maintaining specifying the font-families
---------------------------------------------------
+ we can keep on using more than one font-family
+ we can keep on with a site that will have the same look & feel everywhere
+ user can still 100% override with his own settings or stylesheet
...
./allan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-dev-unsubscribe@perl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-dev-help@perl.apache.org
Re: ANNOUNCE: the new perl.apache.org is alive now!
Posted by Stas Bekman <st...@stason.org>.
allan wrote:
> taking this offlist to the docs list
>
> i agree basically.
>
> one issue could be that not all users of computers have
> access to specfiying their own fonts (libraries, airports,
> internet cafes etc).
so? won't the whatever font is set just work?
> Stas Bekman wrote:
>
>>Nick Tonkin wrote:
>>
>>>The content seems great. But whatever font you've used is rendering skinny
>>>and pixelated and hard to read and makes me want to egt of the site
>>>asap ... why not leave font face undetermined so the font that each has
>>>chosen for his platform is employed?
>>
>>Agreed 100%, my fonts suck too :( When I've changed the font-family to
>>pick the good fonts on linux, users on other platforms didn't like that.
>>
>>We were thinking to try removing font-family completely. Does anybody
>>know of any problems with this approach?
>>
>>__________________________________________________________________
>>Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker
>>http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org
>>mailto:stas@stason.org http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com
>>http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
>
--
__________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org
mailto:stas@stason.org http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com
http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-dev-unsubscribe@perl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-dev-help@perl.apache.org
Re: ANNOUNCE: the new perl.apache.org is alive now!
Posted by allan <la...@inet.uni2.dk>.
taking this offlist to the docs list
i agree basically.
one issue could be that not all users of computers have
access to specfiying their own fonts (libraries, airports,
internet cafes etc).
./allan
Stas Bekman wrote:
>
> Nick Tonkin wrote:
> >
> > The content seems great. But whatever font you've used is rendering skinny
> > and pixelated and hard to read and makes me want to egt of the site
> > asap ... why not leave font face undetermined so the font that each has
> > chosen for his platform is employed?
>
> Agreed 100%, my fonts suck too :( When I've changed the font-family to
> pick the good fonts on linux, users on other platforms didn't like that.
>
> We were thinking to try removing font-family completely. Does anybody
> know of any problems with this approach?
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker
> http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org
> mailto:stas@stason.org http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com
> http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-dev-unsubscribe@perl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-dev-help@perl.apache.org
Re: ANNOUNCE: the new perl.apache.org is alive now!
Posted by allan <la...@inet.uni2.dk>.
Ged Haywood wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> On Sat, 13 Jul 2002, allan wrote:
>
> > > > We were thinking to try removing font-family completely. Does anybody
> > > > know of any problems with this approach?
> > >
> > > I don't think the problem is the font-family
> >
> > for the major part of the content we haven't specified a
> > font-size at all
>
> Once I did a lot of cross-browser/cross-platform stuff, and in the end
> to get decent results I had to check the incoming headers for browser,
> version AND operating system and then modify the HTML to suit. It was
> admittedly a fairly picky set of pages, where layout was everything to
> the Client.
>
> There's really no substitute for viewing the pages on every browser/OS
> combination - all sorts of quirky things appear when you least expect
> it - but it makes for a very crowded desktop. I had nine computers on
> there at the time.
>
> 73,
> Ged.
yes and i think people don't realize one of the cool things about the
code for the new mod_perl site which is the fact that we don't ask for
browser and/or operating system either on client or server side. the
html/stylesheet is excactly the same regardles of platform. that's a
lot easier to maintain in the long run (and a lot harder to develop if
we want a decent result)
./allan
Re: ANNOUNCE: the new perl.apache.org is alive now!
Posted by Ged Haywood <ge...@www2.jubileegroup.co.uk>.
Hi all,
On Sat, 13 Jul 2002, allan wrote:
> > > We were thinking to try removing font-family completely. Does anybody
> > > know of any problems with this approach?
> >
> > I don't think the problem is the font-family
>
> for the major part of the content we haven't specified a
> font-size at all
Once I did a lot of cross-browser/cross-platform stuff, and in the end
to get decent results I had to check the incoming headers for browser,
version AND operating system and then modify the HTML to suit. It was
admittedly a fairly picky set of pages, where layout was everything to
the Client.
There's really no substitute for viewing the pages on every browser/OS
combination - all sorts of quirky things appear when you least expect
it - but it makes for a very crowded desktop. I had nine computers on
there at the time.
73,
Ged.
Re: ANNOUNCE: the new perl.apache.org is alive now!
Posted by allan <la...@inet.uni2.dk>.
Larry Leszczynski wrote:
>
> Hi Stas -
>
> > We were thinking to try removing font-family completely. Does anybody
> > know of any problems with this approach?
>
> I don't think the problem is the font-family but instead specifying
> font-size in pixels. I'm not a stylesheet expert but we had lots of
> trouble getting good cross-browser results using pixels for font size, and
> ended up using "em" instead (which also still lets users use their browser
> options to make the font bigger and smaller if they want to. For simple
> example see:
> http://hotwired.lycos.com/webmonkey/98/15/index1a_page3.html?tw=authoring
>
> Larry Leszczynski
> larryl@furph.com
for the major part of the content we haven't specified a
font-size at all [it's our-commented in the stylesheet].
however, when we do specify a font-size we do in fact
already use "ems". you can verify it by
increasing/decreasing the font-size in your browser font-settings.
we use the more fixed notation of pixels mostly for
non-content stuff like input-elements.
./allan
Re: ANNOUNCE: the new perl.apache.org is alive now!
Posted by Larry Leszczynski <la...@furph.com>.
Hi Stas -
> We were thinking to try removing font-family completely. Does anybody
> know of any problems with this approach?
I don't think the problem is the font-family but instead specifying
font-size in pixels. I'm not a stylesheet expert but we had lots of
trouble getting good cross-browser results using pixels for font size, and
ended up using "em" instead (which also still lets users use their browser
options to make the font bigger and smaller if they want to. For simple
example see:
http://hotwired.lycos.com/webmonkey/98/15/index1a_page3.html?tw=authoring
Larry Leszczynski
larryl@furph.com
Re: ANNOUNCE: the new perl.apache.org is alive now!
Posted by David Wheeler <da...@wheeler.net>.
On 7/16/02 12:13 AM, "Stas Bekman" <st...@stason.org> claimed:
>> Yeah, but that's rather browser dependent. Check this out:
>>
>> http://developer.apple.com/internet/fonts/fonts_gallery.html
>
> sorry, I don't understand your point.
The browsers seem pretty good at figuring this out. And if you use a common
size, your chances are pretty good that it'll look right.
But as font sizes are used very little in the mod_perl site, this is, I
think, starting to be more OT than anything else.
D
--
David Wheeler AIM: dwTheory
david@wheeler.net ICQ: 15726394
http://david.wheeler.net/ Yahoo!: dew7e
Jabber: Theory@jabber.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-dev-unsubscribe@perl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-dev-help@perl.apache.org
Re: ANNOUNCE: the new perl.apache.org is alive now!
Posted by Stas Bekman <st...@stason.org>.
David Wheeler wrote:
> On 7/15/02 8:39 PM, "Stas Bekman" <st...@stason.org> claimed:
>
>
>>You forget about one issue. If you say font-size: 10px and I don't
>>happen to have this specific size of the font installed the presentation
>>will be broken, if the rescaling of the closest match won't happen nicely.
>
>
> Yeah, but that's rather browser dependent. Check this out:
>
> http://developer.apple.com/internet/fonts/fonts_gallery.html
sorry, I don't understand your point.
__________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org
mailto:stas@stason.org http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com
http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-dev-unsubscribe@perl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-dev-help@perl.apache.org
Re: ANNOUNCE: the new perl.apache.org is alive now!
Posted by David Wheeler <da...@wheeler.net>.
On 7/15/02 8:39 PM, "Stas Bekman" <st...@stason.org> claimed:
> You forget about one issue. If you say font-size: 10px and I don't
> happen to have this specific size of the font installed the presentation
> will be broken, if the rescaling of the closest match won't happen nicely.
Yeah, but that's rather browser dependent. Check this out:
http://developer.apple.com/internet/fonts/fonts_gallery.html
David
--
David Wheeler AIM: dwTheory
david@wheeler.net ICQ: 15726394
http://david.wheeler.net/ Yahoo!: dew7e
Jabber: Theory@jabber.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-dev-unsubscribe@perl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-dev-help@perl.apache.org
Re: ANNOUNCE: the new perl.apache.org is alive now!
Posted by Stas Bekman <st...@stason.org>.
David Wheeler wrote:
> On 7/15/02 7:02 PM, "Stas Bekman" <st...@stason.org> claimed:
>
>
>>As Allan has already pointed out the mod_perl site does *not* uses any
>>fixed font sizes, be it pixels or points. We use 'em' which is the only
>>way to stay flexible.
>
>
> Well, it's true that it's the most flexible, but pixels will be the most
> consistent across platforms. They're not great for printing, but I expect
> that most people would use the PDF versions of the site for printing,
> anyway.
You forget about one issue. If you say font-size: 10px and I don't
happen to have this specific size of the font installed the presentation
will be broken, if the rescaling of the closest match won't happen nicely.
> But if specing font sizes is rare, it's moot, anyway.
>
> David
>
--
__________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org
mailto:stas@stason.org http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com
http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-dev-unsubscribe@perl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-dev-help@perl.apache.org
Re: ANNOUNCE: the new perl.apache.org is alive now!
Posted by David Wheeler <da...@wheeler.net>.
On 7/15/02 7:02 PM, "Stas Bekman" <st...@stason.org> claimed:
> As Allan has already pointed out the mod_perl site does *not* uses any
> fixed font sizes, be it pixels or points. We use 'em' which is the only
> way to stay flexible.
Well, it's true that it's the most flexible, but pixels will be the most
consistent across platforms. They're not great for printing, but I expect
that most people would use the PDF versions of the site for printing,
anyway.
But if specing font sizes is rare, it's moot, anyway.
David
--
David Wheeler AIM: dwTheory
david@wheeler.net ICQ: 15726394
http://david.wheeler.net/ Yahoo!: dew7e
Jabber: Theory@jabber.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-dev-unsubscribe@perl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-dev-help@perl.apache.org
Re: ANNOUNCE: the new perl.apache.org is alive now!
Posted by Stas Bekman <st...@stason.org>.
David Wheeler wrote:
> On 7/13/02 9:16 AM, "Stas Bekman" <st...@stason.org> claimed:
>
>
>>Agreed 100%, my fonts suck too :( When I've changed the font-family to
>>pick the good fonts on linux, users on other platforms didn't like that.
>>
>>We were thinking to try removing font-family completely. Does anybody
>>know of any problems with this approach?
>
>
> Are you sure that the font-family is the problem and not the font size? I
> recently found some great information on the Apple developer site that
> pointed out that fonts render best across platforms and browsers if their
> sizes are set in pixels rather than points. It makes sense, when you think
> about it.
>
> I've just applied this principle to the new Bricolage home page. Check
> there, and if the fonts look crappy to anyone, let me know. If not, maybe
> the pixel rule could be applied to the mod_perl site.
>
> http://bricolage.cc/
>
> Regards,
>
> David
>
> PS: The above assumes that the mod_perl site isn't *already* setting font
> sizes in pixels; I would check it now, but I'm on a plane and not plugged
> in. The issue might already be resolved by the time the messages gets sent,
> too. ;-)
As Allan has already pointed out the mod_perl site does *not* uses any
fixed font sizes, be it pixels or points. We use 'em' which is the only
way to stay flexible.
__________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org
mailto:stas@stason.org http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com
http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-dev-unsubscribe@perl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-dev-help@perl.apache.org
Re: ANNOUNCE: the new perl.apache.org is alive now!
Posted by David Wheeler <da...@wheeler.net>.
On 7/13/02 9:16 AM, "Stas Bekman" <st...@stason.org> claimed:
> Agreed 100%, my fonts suck too :( When I've changed the font-family to
> pick the good fonts on linux, users on other platforms didn't like that.
>
> We were thinking to try removing font-family completely. Does anybody
> know of any problems with this approach?
Are you sure that the font-family is the problem and not the font size? I
recently found some great information on the Apple developer site that
pointed out that fonts render best across platforms and browsers if their
sizes are set in pixels rather than points. It makes sense, when you think
about it.
I've just applied this principle to the new Bricolage home page. Check
there, and if the fonts look crappy to anyone, let me know. If not, maybe
the pixel rule could be applied to the mod_perl site.
http://bricolage.cc/
Regards,
David
PS: The above assumes that the mod_perl site isn't *already* setting font
sizes in pixels; I would check it now, but I'm on a plane and not plugged
in. The issue might already be resolved by the time the messages gets sent,
too. ;-)
--
David Wheeler AIM: dwTheory
david@wheeler.net ICQ: 15726394
http://david.wheeler.net/ Yahoo!: dew7e
Jabber: Theory@jabber.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-dev-unsubscribe@perl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-dev-help@perl.apache.org
Re: ANNOUNCE: the new perl.apache.org is alive now!
Posted by Stas Bekman <st...@stason.org>.
Nick Tonkin wrote:
>
> The content seems great. But whatever font you've used is rendering skinny
> and pixelated and hard to read and makes me want to egt of the site
> asap ... why not leave font face undetermined so the font that each has
> chosen for his platform is employed?
Agreed 100%, my fonts suck too :( When I've changed the font-family to
pick the good fonts on linux, users on other platforms didn't like that.
We were thinking to try removing font-family completely. Does anybody
know of any problems with this approach?
__________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org
mailto:stas@stason.org http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com
http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
Re: ANNOUNCE: the new perl.apache.org is alive now!
Posted by Nick Tonkin <ni...@rlnt.net>.
The content seems great. But whatever font you've used is rendering skinny
and pixelated and hard to read and makes me want to egt of the site
asap ... why not leave font face undetermined so the font that each has
chosen for his platform is employed?
- nick
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nick Tonkin {|8^)>
Re: ANNOUNCE: the new perl.apache.org is alive now!
Posted by Gunther Birznieks <gu...@extropia.com>.
I agree! It is great work. It looks really slick.
Unfortunately, the mod_perl guide documentation area has lost
functionality. I wanted to download the "latest" guide before my 23 hour
flight to the USA (to read on the flight) and was dismayed to find hours
before my flight that it is impossible to get a full HTML or full PDF
download of the entire guide anymore...
You can get a PDF of single pages (of which I don't know the reason?), but
the guide itself is quite hard.
I was able to find a copy on someone else's website... but it was mighty
hard on the new one.
Anyway, otherwise it looked very slick and was easy to navigate.
At 06:10 AM 7/13/2002, David Kaufman wrote:
>"Stas Bekman" <st...@stason.org> wrote:
>
> > As you may know, the work on the new mod_perl site started in
> > September 2001, and after almost a year we are glad to present to you
> > the outcome of this work at the expected location:
> >
> > http://perl.apache.org/
>
>fist, let me say: Great Job! the new site looks fantastic, a *vast* and
>long-awaited improvement.
>
>i still notice, however that the *content* of the "Sites Running mod_perl"
>page doesn't seem to have been updated. about 6 months ago, i sent notices
>about two sites that we (Vanguard Media) had launched to the email address
>that used to be on that page, but they were never included.
>
>is this being actively maintained now? should i re-send now to the docs-dev
>mailing list?
>
>thanks and, again, Great Work!
>
>-dave
__________________________________________________
Gunther Birznieks (gunther.birznieks@eXtropia.com)
eXtropia - The Open Web Technology Company
http://www.eXtropia.com/
Office: (65) 64791172 Mobile: (65) 96218290
Re: ANNOUNCE: the new perl.apache.org is alive now!
Posted by David Kaufman <gi...@optonline.net>.
"Matt Sergeant" <ma...@sergeant.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, David Kaufman wrote:
>
> > i still notice, however that the *content* of the "Sites Running
mod_perl"
> > page doesn't seem to have been updated. about 6 months ago, i sent
notices
> > about two sites that we (Vanguard Media) had launched to the email
address
> > that used to be on that page, but they were never included.
>
> Are there that many sites any more that are running pure mod_perl? I would
> expect most new sites to be running one of the framework modules -
> EmbPerl, TT, Mason, AxKit, ASP, etc... Perhaps live sites is a more
> framework specific thing (for example AxKit has its own list).
i guess the answer depends on your definition of pure "mod_perl". our sites
are developed using CGI::Application and HTML::Template, which might be
called a framework, a toolset or a swiss army knife :-) but the server
headers say:
~ lynx -head -dump http://www.pageaday.com
HTTP/1.0 200 OK
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 20:24:46 GMT
Server: Apache/1.3.20 (Unix) mod_perl/1.25
and
~ lynx -head -dump http://www.asiasociety.org
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 21:58:23 GMT
Server: Apache/1.3.24 (Unix) mod_perl/1.25 mod_ssl/2.8.8 OpenSSL/0.9.6c
so, yes i consider them "pure mod_perl sites" though the code is not *pure*
native mod_perl handler code. CGI::App's run faster under mod_perl in
Registry mode, but they also can be run (unmodified, if designed that way)
as CGI's.
do AxKit, Embperl, or Mason advertise themselves in the server signature?
can sites developed using all of these frameworks not also be said to be
"running mod_perl"?
perhaps the question should be: can sites developed on these frameworks run
*without* mod_perl?
-dave
Re: ANNOUNCE: the new perl.apache.org is alive now!
Posted by David Kaufman <gi...@optonline.net>.
"Matt Sergeant" <ma...@sergeant.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, David Kaufman wrote:
>
> > i still notice, however that the *content* of the "Sites Running
mod_perl"
> > page doesn't seem to have been updated. about 6 months ago, i sent
notices
> > about two sites that we (Vanguard Media) had launched to the email
address
> > that used to be on that page, but they were never included.
>
> Are there that many sites any more that are running pure mod_perl? I would
> expect most new sites to be running one of the framework modules -
> EmbPerl, TT, Mason, AxKit, ASP, etc... Perhaps live sites is a more
> framework specific thing (for example AxKit has its own list).
i guess the answer depends on your definition of pure "mod_perl". our sites
are developed using CGI::Application and HTML::Template, which might be
called a framework, a toolset or a swiss army knife :-) but the server
headers say:
~ lynx -head -dump http://www.pageaday.com
HTTP/1.0 200 OK
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 20:24:46 GMT
Server: Apache/1.3.20 (Unix) mod_perl/1.25
and
~ lynx -head -dump http://www.asiasociety.org
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 21:58:23 GMT
Server: Apache/1.3.24 (Unix) mod_perl/1.25 mod_ssl/2.8.8 OpenSSL/0.9.6c
so, yes i consider them "pure mod_perl sites" though the code is not *pure*
native mod_perl handler code. CGI::App's run faster under mod_perl in
Registry mode, but they also can be run (unmodified, if designed that way)
as CGI's.
do AxKit, Embperl, or Mason advertise themselves in the server signature?
can sites developed using all of these frameworks not also be said to be
"running mod_perl"?
perhaps the question should be: can sites developed on these frameworks run
*without* mod_perl?
-dave
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-dev-unsubscribe@perl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-dev-help@perl.apache.org
Re: ANNOUNCE: the new perl.apache.org is alive now!
Posted by Matt Sergeant <ma...@sergeant.org>.
On 12 Jul 2002, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
> Oh, and add Template Toolkit (www.tt2.org) to that list.
You mean like this:
> Matt> EmbPerl, TT, Mason, AxKit, ASP, etc... Perhaps live sites is a more
^^
;-)
--
<!-- Matt -->
<:->Get a smart net</:->
Re: ANNOUNCE: the new perl.apache.org is alive now!
Posted by "Randal L. Schwartz" <me...@stonehenge.com>.
>>>>> "Matt" == Matt Sergeant <ma...@sergeant.org> writes:
Matt> Are there that many sites any more that are running pure mod_perl? I would
Matt> expect most new sites to be running one of the framework modules -
Matt> EmbPerl, TT, Mason, AxKit, ASP, etc... Perhaps live sites is a more
Matt> framework specific thing (for example AxKit has its own list).
Oh, and add Template Toolkit (www.tt2.org) to that list.
--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<me...@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!
Re: ANNOUNCE: the new perl.apache.org is alive now!
Posted by Matt Sergeant <ma...@sergeant.org>.
On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, David Kaufman wrote:
> i still notice, however that the *content* of the "Sites Running mod_perl"
> page doesn't seem to have been updated. about 6 months ago, i sent notices
> about two sites that we (Vanguard Media) had launched to the email address
> that used to be on that page, but they were never included.
Are there that many sites any more that are running pure mod_perl? I would
expect most new sites to be running one of the framework modules -
EmbPerl, TT, Mason, AxKit, ASP, etc... Perhaps live sites is a more
framework specific thing (for example AxKit has its own list).
--
<!-- Matt -->
<:->Get a smart net</:->
Re: ANNOUNCE: the new perl.apache.org is alive now!
Posted by David Kaufman <gi...@optonline.net>.
"Stas Bekman" <st...@stason.org> wrote:
> As you may know, the work on the new mod_perl site started in
> September 2001, and after almost a year we are glad to present to you
> the outcome of this work at the expected location:
>
> http://perl.apache.org/
fist, let me say: Great Job! the new site looks fantastic, a *vast* and
long-awaited improvement.
i still notice, however that the *content* of the "Sites Running mod_perl"
page doesn't seem to have been updated. about 6 months ago, i sent notices
about two sites that we (Vanguard Media) had launched to the email address
that used to be on that page, but they were never included.
is this being actively maintained now? should i re-send now to the docs-dev
mailing list?
thanks and, again, Great Work!
-dave