On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 4:26 AM, Reinhold Kainhofer
wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Am Dienstag, 23. Dezember 2008 05:01:39 schrieb Patrick McCarty:
>> Is this better for you, Till? Does anyone else have any more
>> comments?
>
> The only thing that is bothering me is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Dienstag, 23. Dezember 2008 05:01:39 schrieb Patrick McCarty:
> Is this better for you, Till? Does anyone else have any more
> comments?
The only thing that is bothering me is the color of visited links in the TOC
on the left. The different color
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 10:02:44PM +0200, Till Rettig wrote:
> Patrick McCarty schrieb:
>> I have considered keeping the soft blue for the links, but here are my
>> two main reasons for changing to the more "pure" blue:
>>
>> - The current blue (#3465a4) does not pass the WCAG 1.0 against a
>> whit
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Till Rettig wrote:
> Patrick McCarty schrieb:
>>
>> I have considered keeping the soft blue for the links, but here are my
>> two main reasons for changing to the more "pure" blue:
>>
>> - The current blue (#3465a4) does not pass the WCAG 1.0 against a
>> white ba
Patrick McCarty schrieb:
I have considered keeping the soft blue for the links, but here are my
two main reasons for changing to the more "pure" blue:
- The current blue (#3465a4) does not pass the WCAG 1.0 against a
white background. Based on experience, the new blue definitely
increases reada
Hi Till,
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 9:41 AM, Till Rettig wrote:
> Patrick McCarty schrieb:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> This patch features many of the same changes as my previous patches,
>> but I have changed fewer colors this time. One notable color that is
>> not present is the `soft blue' currently bein
Patrick McCarty schrieb:
Hello,
This patch features many of the same changes as my previous patches,
but I have changed fewer colors this time. One notable color that is
not present is the `soft blue' currently being used for links. I hope
to reintegrate this color in the future.
Hi,
I lik
2008/10/3 Werner LEMBERG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> I'm simply suggesting that we should use (or there should be a)
>> Texi2XHMTL rather than Texi2HTML.
>
> Ahh, this is something *completely* different :-) XHTML is fine -- the
> closing tags (not necessary in HTML) are good for humans too, but XML
> I'm simply suggesting that we should use (or there should be a)
> Texi2XHMTL rather than Texi2HTML.
Ahh, this is something *completely* different :-) XHTML is fine -- the
closing tags (not necessary in HTML) are good for humans too, but XML
is normally far too verbose.
Werner
__
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Freitag, 3. Oktober 2008 schrieb Kieren MacMillan:
> Hi John,
>
> > XML is quite cumbersome to type by hand,
> > Texinfo is much easier to type because it's very concise.
>
> I'm simply suggesting that we should use (or there should be a)
> Texi2XHM
Hi John,
XML is quite cumbersome to type by hand,
Texinfo is much easier to type because it's very concise.
I'm simply suggesting that we should use (or there should be a)
Texi2XHMTL rather than Texi2HTML.
Cheers,
Kieren.
___
lilypond-devel mai
0n 2008/10/02 18:18 +0200, Eyolf Østrem wrote:
> On 02.10.2008 (12:01), Kieren MacMillan wrote:
> > Hi Reinhold,
> >
> >> Yes, texi2html creates HTML 4.01 ;-)
> >
> > That's a pretty darned good reason! =)
>
> ... for leaving behind this horrible beast called texinfo :)
>
> In addition to an xml
On 02.10.2008 (12:01), Kieren MacMillan wrote:
> Hi Reinhold,
>
>> Yes, texi2html creates HTML 4.01 ;-)
>
> That's a pretty darned good reason! =)
... for leaving behind this horrible beast called texinfo :)
In addition to an xml-compliant format.
eyolf
--
"Ann and I will carry out this equi
Hi Reinhold,
Yes, texi2html creates HTML 4.01 ;-)
That's a pretty darned good reason! =)
So Are there any other reasons against HTML 4.01 other than
that it was specified a decade ago?
Sure… the main argument, of course, is that HTML 4.01 pages can't be
processed with XML tools (pa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Donnerstag, 2. Oktober 2008 schrieb Kieren MacMillan:
> Hi all,
>
> > The current docs are HTML 4.01
>
> Is there some good reason for this?
Yes, texi2html creates HTML 4.01 ;-)
> FTR, HTML 4.01 is nearly 11 years old… ;-)
So Are there any o
Hi all,
The current docs are HTML 4.01
Is there some good reason for this?
FTR, HTML 4.01 is nearly 11 years old… ;-)
Cheers,
Kieren.
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Donnerstag, 2. Oktober 2008 schrieb Patrick McCarty:
> Please disregard the patch I posted in the "WANTED: Design ..."
> thread, because this patch includes those updates.
I've commited this patch.
Am Donnerstag, 2. Oktober 2008 schrieb Francisco
2008/10/2 Patrick McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hello,
>
> Please disregard the patch I posted in the "WANTED: Design ..."
> thread, because this patch includes those updates.
>
> I added closing `li' tags and removed the unnecessary ` '
> characters from the index pages.
Patrick,
Does this make
18 matches
Mail list logo
