[ Omitting gcc-patches ]
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007, Janne Blomqvist wrote:
> I think that if indeed metahtml is in such a bad shape as you
> describe, moving away from it asap is the right thing to do. But I'm
> not convinced that developing a gcc.gnu.org-specific template engine
> is the correct answer
ping? Gerald, being web pages maintainers, what's your opinion?
Answering to Janne's comment, I'm certainly not opposed to any
preprocessor/templating system. My own goal is to rewrite the fortran
pages, including the common navigation bar, and I can't use MetaHTML
to do that.
On 9/29/07, FX Co
On 9/29/07, FX Coudert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Comments are highly welcome, both on the idea itself, and on the Perl
> script (my Perl is a bit rusty since I haven't used it for years).
I think that if indeed metahtml is in such a bad shape as you
describe, moving away from it asap is the rig
Hi,
I am in the process of rewriting the Fortran part of our website
(http://gcc.gnu.org/), part of which consists of adding the GCC
navigation bar. To do so, I had to install localy MetaHTML, our
current web preprocessor, and my experiences with it have left me
less than impressed [1].
