Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL.org v3 -- Progress?
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 20:14:31 -0000
Message-ID: <03AF4E498C591348A42FC93DEA9661B8720202@mail.vale-housing.co.uk>
Thread-Topic: [pgsql-www] PostgreSQL.org v3 -- Progress?
thread-index: AcO+iTcTepeIbm8oTK+vjz/hxLCOAQABmI4g
From: "Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>
To: "Josh Berkus" <josh@agliodbs.com>, <pgsql-www@postgresql.org>

=20

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Josh Berkus [mailto:josh@agliodbs.com]=20
> Sent: 09 December 2003 19:17
> To: Dave Page; pgsql-www@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] PostgreSQL.org v3 -- Progress?
>=20
> Dave,
>=20
> > dissertation topic (suggestions *very* welcome - it's for an MSc in=20
> > IT)
>=20
> Sorry, can't help -- my degree is in Fine Art.

That's gotta be one of the more unusual direction changes I've come
across - how did you get into IT if you don't mind me asking?

> > - the design should match what we're aiming for on the portal (the=20
> > most common complaint I hear is that all our sites look different).
> >
> > - the look and feel should be centralised so we can update=20
> the design=20
> > of the entire site by changing only a single stylesheet and=20
> template=20
> > or similar.
>=20
> Yes.   Our plan was to make jobs.postgresql.org an=20
> application within the=20
> PostgreSQL.org CSS+"frame".   That's why we need that code=20
> before we can=20
> proceed.  Can we decide on  a "final" CSS out of the ones=20
> presented so that we can start work on this?

I have yet to see one that made me go 'wow' unfortunately. Andreas and
Michael's new version of the existing code is the one I like most at the
moment, but it still needs work. Currently though, I think that the
major redesign is less of a priority - the re-coding should allow us to
easily apply a new design at a later date.

> > - Ideally please use PHP/PostgreSQL as that is what most of us know.
>=20
> Oh, sorry, didn't mention that?   Yes, that will be the=20
> technology employed.

You might have done, I was replying from memory.

Regards, Dave.