[Lablgtk-list] Work on a newer website, comments welcome

Adrien camaradetux at gmail.com
Thu Aug 16 10:16:02 CEST 2012

On 16/08/2012, Jacques Garrigue <garrigue at math.nagoya-u.ac.jp> wrote:
> On 2012/08/16, at 1:35, Adrien wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've made a try at a newer website for lablgtk. It can be seen at:
> >  http://notk.org/~adrien/lablgtk_website/
> >
> > The page is shorter and tries to make it more friendly to beginners.
> > I've stripped quite a lot of text and removed a few dead links.
> >
> > It also relies on the fact that lablgtk is now host on the OCaml forge
> > and is less verbose about downloads.
> >
> > Do you have comments about it? Things that could be shorter or more
> > detailled?
> >
> > Also, the website code is maybe less than HTML 4 and with an old design.
> > it's pretty simple and I personaly enjoy that but comments on that
> > aspect are welcome too.
> >
> Looks fine, and indeed a bit more structured than the current one.
> Not removing old releases was just out of pure laziness...
> About the contents:
> * related libraries should probably include cairo-ocaml
>         http://www.cairographics.org/cairo-ocaml/
>   but Olivier could be more specific about the relation

I agree that cairo bindings should be mentionned. However this brings
the question: "cairo-ocaml", "cairo2" or both (probably)?
cairo2 is at http://forge.ocamlcore.org/projects/cairo ; it is more
maintained and with several things done better than in cairo-ocaml
according to its author.

By the way, the move to ocamlfind has broken cairo-ocaml because it uses
"-I +lablgtk". I can't remember if I've already mentionned that (I'll
check but this wifi connection is not very convenient right now).

> * the application list is short, so I see no reason to move it to a different page
>   (but it could be more exhaustive, justifying the separation)

Yup, making a more exhaustive one without flooding the main page is the
goal. I haven't spent time on it so far but I can easily count several

> * the "not updated" comment about GTK+-1 support just reflects the fact there
>   is nothing to update (there were releases after 2003, particularly for windows)
>   So I would rather write "Legacy GTK+-1 support" without comment.

Agreed, and changed.


Adrien Nader

More information about the Lablgtk-list mailing list