[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ipcop-devel
Subject:    Re: [IPCop-devel] Questions
From:       Richard Lynch <ceo () l-i-e ! com>
Date:       2001-12-26 4:31:58
[Download RAW message or body]

IMHO:

>Licensing
>========
>- - Open doc licensing
>- - GPL

Yes, yes.

>Languages
>========
>- - PHP 4(templates?)

No templates.  High maintenance.  Easier to train a graphic artist to 
ignore/use PHP than to jump through Template hoops, or to take a 
static graphic artist page and pepper in the PHP.

Template performance is also abysmal except for Smartie.  So, if the 
team votes for Templates, please consider Smartie.

>- - HTML (3.2?)  (Frames No?/Javascript No?/XHTML yes)

No frames, Javascript for non-required functionality only, no XHTML/DHTML.
Use tags that work on *EVERY* browser since version 3 days.
Use Javascript that does not pop up error messages on *any* browser.
No CSS even.  You've got PHP, use that to do your font tags.

>- - C
>- - C++ ?

Don't like either, but it won't be me coding the actual IPCop, so I abstain :-)

>- - XML Schema vs DTD (Personally I would vote schema)

XML is great for distributed database processing.
XML is pointless band-wagon hype-following for anything else.
Do we have a distributed-database problem to solve? No.
No XML.

>
>Documentation
>============
>- - Word 97/StarOffice (Star works pretty well for me)
>- - OpenDoc? (or whatever is the norm for GPL docs these days)
>- - PDF

For now, .rtf is what the doc team picked.
Should be readily convertible to all of the above.

>While I like PDF, I find these documents dont get updates as nearly
>as often as HTML. I see this as a major cause of the Smoothwall FAQ
>not getting correctly updated. Personally I think we should aim to
>use PDF for long documents that might need to get printed
>(installation guide etc), but more fluid documents (FAQ) should be
>HTML. Thoughts?

Automagically generate HTML and PDF from the .rtf docs.
DocBook is supposed to be great at this, but I never did figure out 
how to work it.

>As far as writing the HTML pages I assume that we are opting for PHP
>over raw C where ever possible?

Yes. :-)

Actually, I'd go so far as to say that anything that has to be in C 
should also have to have a command-line version of its output for 
those that don't want to run a HTTP server on a firewall.

>All C code would have 2 security
>audits (1 automatic by program/1 manual)? Potentially GPG/MD5 sign
>all code?

More manual audits.
At least 2 (3?) developers need to sign off in the ChangeLog for a 
patch/file to be "in".

>Finally given we are browser based is our goal to support all
>browsers, 4+, JavaScript etc? I'm sure every one has their own
>opinions, just trying to get a concensus!

Yes.  I'd even opt for version 3 browsers, simply because that 
generally makes sure you can work on the lesser-known browsers.
-- 
WARNING richard@zend.com email address is an endangered species
Use ceo@l-i-e.com instead

_______________________________________________
IPCop-devel mailing list
IPCop-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ipcop-devel

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]