Darren O. Benham wrote:
> That could be how the scripts are set up. I'll look at it when I get to
> work.
The dates on the index come from the PAGENAME variable that is set at the
top of each page. If you translate a page and translate that too, it should
work.
--
see shy jo
On Sat, Jun 26, 1999 at 12:47:12AM +0200, peter karlsson wrote:
> I was just browsing through the debian-www archives (November 1998), I found
> a proposal about being able to translate just the news titles and dates
> while waiting to translate the text body.
>
> However, I didn't find a resoluti
On Tue, Jun 29, 1999 at 04:27:52PM +0200, Peter Karlsson wrote:
> This is strange. After the Swedish pages were re-generated, it seems
> that the DWN index took the dates from the English version instead of
> the Swedish one.
>
> How come?
>
That could be how the scripts are set up. I'll look a
On Tue, Jun 29, 1999 at 07:22:21AM -0700, Joel Klecker wrote:
> Also, JPEG is designed for photographic images, solid color images or
> line art tend to look like crap in JPEG format (have you seen what
> happened to the white background of the old logo in JPEG format? it
> ended up with a sligh
Joel Klecker wrote:
> I personally don't see the big deal with using GIF, our logo was
> likely made with non-free software anyway, and it is possible to
> write GIFs without infringing on the LZW patent (libungif, libgd 1.3
> or later).
...or by simply making sure the images were created in a co
This is strange. After the Swedish pages were re-generated, it seems
that the DWN index took the dates from the English version instead of
the Swedish one.
How come?
--
\\//
peter - exjobb @ ///
At 02:22 -0400 1999-06-29, James A. Treacy wrote:
Because I wasn't thinking. :) As long as the jpg image is of
acceptable quality we can use it.
I'm really not keen on the jpg format, though, for technical
reasons. Editing a jpg is like washing clothes, but worse.
Every time you edit it, the qua
"James A. Treacy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but I still believe we should
> use .gif for the images on our site until .png is supported by
> a large enough percentage of browsers in use. This wouldn't
What about:
Browsers which doesn't support probally
On Mon, Jun 28, 1999 at 09:08:17PM -0700, Darren O. Benham wrote:
> Why not .jpg? We're using it for the logo, atleast, because transparency
> isn't an issue.. the background of both logo and web page are white.
>
Because I wasn't thinking. :) As long as the jpg image is of
acceptable quality we
> I'm all for picking one format to provide the most common sizes
> (.jpg or .png) plus a single .fig, .ps and .xcf version.
>
> The big question is whether we should use .jpg or .png for the
> supplied versions. I vote for .png.
I don't. I suggest .jpg for the same reasons you don't think we sho
On Mon, Jun 28, 1999 at 02:36:01PM -0700, Darren O. Benham wrote:
> With the old logo, we provided JPGs, PNGs and GIFs as well as anvarious
> vector formats for peole who atned to create their own format/size... Do
> we still want to provide all the different formats or maybe just (choosing
> one)
11 matches
Mail list logo
