Closed Bug 393447 Opened 17 years ago Closed 16 years ago

Cleanup, reorganize and update www.mozilla.org/projects

Categories

(www.mozilla.org :: General, defect)

Product:
www.mozilla.org
Component:
General
Type:
defect
Priority:
Not set
Severity:
normal

Tracking

(Not tracked)

Status:
RESOLVED FIXED

People

(Reporter: sipaq, Assigned: davidwboswell)

References

Details

Attachments

(5 files, 13 obsolete files)

HTML version of Mozilla-Based Applications page
5.17 KB, text/html
Details
Featured Projects page ready to post
8.66 KB, text/html
Details
Patch for adding new Technologies and Specifications page to Featured Projects page
5.32 KB, patch
samuel.sidler+old
: review+
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
Proposed new Mozilla Specifications page
3.01 KB, text/html
samuel.sidler+old
: review+
Details
Proposed new Mozilla Technologies page
5.69 KB, text/html
samuel.sidler+old
: review+
Details
This is a spin-off bug from bug 345664 and part of the efforts documented on http://wiki.mozilla.org/Mozilla.org:Planning A first proposal was posted in mozilla.dev.mozilla-org: http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.mozilla-org/browse_frm/thread/6f57629383cab883 A second proposal (current) can be found in mozilla.dev.mozilla-org as well: http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.mozilla-org/browse_frm/thread/5e496665ce51eea0 The current proposal contains a list of projects, which should be removed from http://www.mozilla.org/projects sometimes combined with a pointer to documentation worthy to be migrated to http://developer.mozilla.org/
Depends on: mozilla.org
Can you handle bug 325485 at the same time? :)
Attached file Proposed Featured Projects page (obsolete) —
Attached file NOMENU file for html/projects/ (obsolete) —
I talked to sipaq about this yesterday and here's how we think this should be resolved: - Add a new Featured Projects page at www.mozilla.org/projects/ - Update the current project list and move it to www.mozilla.org/projects/allprojects.html (or something similiar) or split up the list into several different pages based on type of project I posted an attachment of a new Featured Projects page that is ready to be reviewed. sipaq, could you take a look at this? I also attached a NOMENU file that needs to be checked-in along with the new index.html file. Note that the Featured page lists projects alphabetically. This means that Firefox isn't the first Featured Application, but this is consistent with the current projects list (SeaMonkey is the first link and Firefox is below the fold). Also note that Miro and Songbird are in the Featured Application list and I would suggest that we switch these two spots out with other community projects every month or so.
Attachment #291681 - Attachment is obsolete: true
(In reply to comment #4) > fold). Also note that Miro and Songbird are in the Featured Application list > and I would suggest that we switch these two spots out with other community > projects every month or so. Have we ever linked out to projects that aren't under mozilla.org before? Is there any concern with people thinking those projects are associated with the Foundation? (I'm not asking because I'm against doing the above, rather, I'm not sure this has been discussed before. Or I just missed it...)
If we include community projects should make it clear which projects are conducted as Mozilla projects and which are not. And in any case Songbird is not a community project. It is a venture-backed start-up tied to private wealth creation. So it should not be listed with community projects. If listed at all, it should be with other products built using the Mozilla code.
The word Mozilla means different things, so I think that is creating some ambiguity. When we say 'Mozilla Applications' are we talking about the technology that an application is built with or are we talking about the organization that is behind an application? IMO, the common thread for all of the Featured Applications is that they are built using Mozilla code (or to put it another way, each of these applications could use the new Powered by Mozilla logo). There are a variety of different people and organizations (some for-profit and some non-profit) who are making these different applications though, so this categorization might not make sense if we talking about the Mozilla organization. It's good to be discussing this since the answers will help us define the vision of the www.mozilla.org site.
It's a fine thing to include somehow people and organizations that use Mozilla technology. That seems very different from a Mozilla project to me. I would make a clear distinction.
If we're going to make a distinction, I think there are two questions we need to answer (this might not be the place to discussion it, but I'll mention the two issues I think are relevant). - What do we call an application like Songbird or Miro to distinguish it from Mozilla projects? For example, something like 'Mozilla-Based Application' seems like it would create confusion. Something like 'Project Built Using Mozilla Code' is more clear but maybe there's a shorter way to say it? - How do we define what a Mozilla project is? Historically, that's been easy since it is any project hosted on mozilla.org. Now that traditional Mozilla projects are being hosted other places (like Camino and SeaMonkey) this could cause some confusion too unless we provide a clear definition somewhere.
(In reply to comment #10) > - How do we define what a Mozilla project is? Historically, that's been easy > since it is any project hosted on mozilla.org. Now that traditional Mozilla > projects are being hosted other places (like Camino and SeaMonkey) this could > cause some confusion too unless we provide a clear definition somewhere. Err... SeaMonkey and Camino are still hosted in cvs.mozilla.org. SeaMonkey still uses mozilla.org web hosting as well. I think we tend to define it as "code is hosted and available on mozilla.org" and potentially "the Foundation represents this project [legally or otherwise]".
I understand that the SeaMonkey and Camino code is hosted in cvs.mozilla.org, but my comment was based on thinking like a user who was visiting www.mozilla.org. Originally all the Mozilla projects had web space hosted on the www.mozilla.org site and now they don't. People will be taken off site for both Mozilla projects (Firefox, Camino...) and projects that are built with Mozilla code (Songbird, Komodo...). Because of this there's no clear way for a user to distinguish what's an official Mozilla project and what isn't, so I was suggesting we just explicitly define what we mean by Mozilla project (because a regular user won't know how the code is structured and where it is). This is a minor point though. I think the main issue is just figuring out what to call the projects that aren't Mozilla projects.
Attachment #291684 - Attachment is obsolete: true
I just posted a new version of the Featured Projects page that splits up the Applications section into Mozilla Applications and Other Applications (for lack of a better phrase here). I also provided some text in both of those sections to explain what the differences are. We can certainly edit the text or change the category names, but I think the general outline of the page now addresses the earlier comments.
How about: 1) Mozilla Projects 2) Other Projects Powered by Mozilla [Technology] And then include the image somewhere in the description for #2?
David, your proposal looks great. I'd suggest the following fixes, though: - Please add Lightning as well. It's as important as Sunbird and is listed on the frontpage as well. - "Other applications" sounds to undeterministic. I'd suggest to rename it to "Mozilla-based applications". - Bugzilla is a full-blown application and should move into the apps section.
Is the "See more applications built using Mozilla code..." link going to point to the Hall of Fame ( http://www.mozilla.org/university/HOF.html ), to the proposed www.mozilla.org/projects/allprojects.html or to something else altogether?
David, can you say more about your thinking about having two Mozilla-based applictions included? When I look at this it seems like there are only two, and that's not the case. If you had the idea of "featuring" some then maybe some text saying there are many of these, and you've listed two here only for an example, and there are others, and point to something. I think that having a list that people and companies can add themselves too, or file a bug and nominate themselves to be included on the list will be important. So for example, Flock is not on your list of two examples. If Flock wants to be included, they should have a way of getting on the list that is not a public complaint or an angry mail to someone at Mozilla.
That's a good point. Maybe moving these all off this main /projects/ page and simply placing them on a page like the Hall of Fame linked to in comment 17 would be better.
BTW, as you seem to care about stating the trademarks, a ® should be added to the first mentioning of the word "SeaMonkey" as well :) I like the direction this is going, thanks for your work on that!
Attachment #291711 - Attachment is obsolete: true
I've attached a new version of the Featured Projects page that addresses the last batch of comments. I made the following changes: - I renamed the non-Mozilla application section 'Featured Applications Powered by Mozilla'. - I think adding the Powered by Mozilla logo is a great idea, so I updated the sidebar text and added the logo there. The logo size and placement might need some tweaking, but I think it fits well in this spot. I didn't want to put the logo in the section just for the non-Mozilla applications, since the Mozilla apps (Firefox, SeaMonkey...) are Powered by Mozilla too. Since Powered by Mozilla covers more than the non-Mozilla projects, we may want to keep thinking of names for the non-Mozilla set of projects. - I updated the text for the Sunbird item to include information about Lightning. - I didn't move the Bugzilla link, since it is a development tool and not an end-user application. Bugzilla certainly is a very important official Mozilla project, but I think it makes sense to group this with other development tools. Note that the current Projects list also puts Bugzilla under the Tools page along with Bonsai and Tinderbox. - This page is definitely intended to be a featured selection of projects with links to more complete projects lists. I made this more explicit in several places to avoid any confusion. As for where the links to find more projects will go, we have several options here. I'll let sipaq respond though since he was going through the reorganization of the current Projects list. - I added a link in the 'Featured Applications Powered by Mozilla' section for people to suggest other applications to include in the list. Note that the link doesn't go anywhere right now, so we should decide if this is just an email address or a link to Bugzilla or something else. As for my thinking about this category, I think it is very important to include these types of projects on this page since applications like Komodo and Miro are important members of the community even if they aren't part of the Mozilla organization. As mentioned earlier, I'd like to rotate these spaces every month or so to bring some more visibility to these sets of projects. - For registration marks, the marks that were on the page were just copied from the text on the current Products page. I added a registration mark to SeaMonkey, but I'm fine with removing the marks from the names to be consistent. If people have strong feelings about this one way or the other, feel free to let us know.
David, your latest iteration is definitely an improvement. A few things remain, however: - Bugzilla is still in the development tool section. Please move it up to the apps section. - Please separate Lightning and Sunbird into two projects. They are different projects and should be treated as such. They are only as similar to one another as Thunderbird is to SeaMonkey's mail part or Firefox is to SeaMonkey's browser part. - The applications powered by Mozilla should link to the Hall of Fame page - Please remove the CSS style="border: none;" from every image and either add it to the 'featured' class in the site stylesheet or define a separate class in the <HEAD> section
Attachment #291899 - Attachment is obsolete: true
> - Bugzilla is still in the development tool section. Please move it up to > the apps section. As I mentioned in comment #22, I think Bugzilla belongs in the Development Tools section and not in the Applications section. > - Please separate Lightning and Sunbird into two projects. They are > different projects and should be treated as such. Since Lightning is an extension, it should go in the Add-ons category if you'd prefer to break it out from the Sunbird listing. In the Add-ons category, I've linked directly to AMO instead of highlighting some specific add-ons because I didn't think that I'd be able to maintain this section and keep it updated with new featured extensions. If someone would like to own this section, you are welcome to add 3 or 4 extensions, including Lightning. > - The applications powered by Mozilla should link to the Hall of Fame > page Done. Note that the Hall of Fame page is very out of date. We should either update this or point to a more current page that includes Mozilla-based applications. One possible alternative is the XULRunner Hall of Fame on MDC. http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/XULRunner_Hall_of_Fame I also added a link to the Mozilla Development Tools section on MDC for the 'See more development tools' link. That means that we just need to figure out where the 'See more Mozilla applications' and 'See more Mozilla technologies' links go. > - Please remove the CSS style="border: none;" from every image and either > add it to the 'featured' class in the site stylesheet or define a > separate class in the <HEAD> section I moved this style information into the <HEAD> section, but now I'm seeing borders around the images so I obviously overlooked something. I'll take another look at this once we're happy with the content on the page. One other comment: it would be great to get an image to use for the technology section. If anyone can create or has an image we could use that would fit here, let me know.
Attachment #291926 - Attachment is obsolete: true
I talked to sipaq on IRC today and he suggested a few changes to the proposed projects page. I posted a new version that has some updated text for the Sunbird and Lightning section and the 'See more Mozilla applications' link has been removed. If we're defining Mozilla applications by what's on the Products page now, then all of those projects (except Minimo which isn't being maintained) are on this page. There are certainly other Applications Powered by Mozilla that we can link to though. I also added a graphic to the links in the Technologies section to keep the look consistent with the other categories. I used the black and white version of the Mozilla head graphic.
The latest version is still inconsistent in its application of ®/™ to our trademarked names; we either need all or none ;) See http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html for the full list.
Attachment #292144 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Re comment #28, the latest attachment is now consistent with the Trademarks policy. We'll leave these marks in unless someone lawyer-ly tells us we don't need them.
> www.mozilla.org/projects/allprojects.html I'd make that www.mozilla.org/projects/all -- no need to repeat "projects". http://www.mozilla.org/contribute/writing/guidelines#adding (to drop '.html' add "Options +MultiViews" to a /projects/.htaccess file) > <a href="http://caminobrowser.org"><img src="../images/product-camino.png" > width="50" height="80" alt="Camino" class="featured"></a> > <h3><a href="http://caminobrowser.org" > class="producttitle"><strong>Camino</strong></a></h3> Put the image inside the <h3>'s link, assign it "display: block", and give it alt="". (Likewise for all other such headings.) I think that should still provide the intended look while giving a better structure for non-graphical or non-visual display. If people aren't going to complain about it this time, you could add img { border: none; } to the site-wide base/content.css, which should take care of the image borders. Also, you need to run your file through the validator, it has errors. I can tell just by looking. :P
Attachment #291682 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #292449 - Attachment is obsolete: true
I made the following changes in the latest attached version: - Based on comment #31, I moved all project images into <h3> links. I tested on Firefox and Safari on Mac and it looks fine. Could someone test on IE? - I fixed the CSS issue with borders around the images by removing the img { border: none; } style and using the Products page template for this page. That means we don't need the NOMENU file anymore. - I fixed the validation issues. Page nows validates as 4.01 strict. - I tweaked the layout of the sidebar to make the Powered by Mozilla logo a little smaller. - I added a link to the Contact page for the 'Let us know' link in the Mozilla-based apps section. - I changed 'Applications that are Powered by Mozilla' section to 'Mozilla-Based Applications'. I thought the previous category name would cause confusion with the Powered by Mozilla logo (since the Mozilla Application section projects are also Powered by Mozilla). I think 'Mozilla-Based Application' is still confusing for people (it's not immediately clear what the difference is with Mozilla Applications) so I'm open to suggestions for other ways to refer this category.
How about "mozilla.org applications" and "other Mozilla-based applications"?
It could be useful to get the community's input on how to refer to the two types of applications (the traditional mozilla.org apps and the non-mozilla.org apps). My suggestion is to not hold up this page over this specific issue, but to go with what we have now and then blog about the naming issue once the page is live and then change the category names as needed. If that sounds reasonable, I think the only thing that we still need to do is figure out what to do about the 'See more Mozilla technologies...' link.
I just realized that it would be easy for us to either update the Hall of Fame page or create a new page that provides an up-to-date list of projects and organizations that are using Mozilla. Each time we rotate off the two applications in the Featured Mozilla-Based Applications section, we can just copy them to the Hall of Fame or a new page. This attachment shows an example of what a new page would look like based on the proposed Featured Projects page format.
(In reply to comment #36) > Created an attachment (id=294064) [details] > Mockup of Mozilla-Based Applications page This looks good to me. Nice work, David!
Yes, I like it too. I'd vote for overhauling or replacing the HOF page, it is woefully out of date, If you need help in weeding out the applications that are not relevant, let me know.
If people like the idea of a new Mozilla-Based Applications page, then let's plan to go live with that when we post the Featured Applications page. I would recommend: - Posting this at http://www.mozilla.org/projects/mozilla-based.html (or another URL that would be more appropriate) - Redirecting the current Other Projects page (http://www.mozilla.org/projects/other-projects.html) to this - Either redirecting the Hall of Fame page to this or updating it and then linking to it from the sidebar on this new page. If we update the Hall of Fame page it could be focused specifically on vendors instead of focused on applications. I thought we'd want to have a few more applications listed on this page when we went live, so I added four more and posted a new mockup.
Attachment #294064 - Attachment is obsolete: true
I had posted some image mockups of a Mozilla-Based Applications page before, but here is the HTML version. This has a couple small changes over the previous image mockup -- I swapped out one of the projects and I added links to information on developing Mozilla-based applications to the sidebar.
Attachment #294265 - Attachment is obsolete: true
The last thing we need to do for the Featured Projects page is figure out where to point the 'See more Mozilla technologies' link. I think there are two options here: - Point to the MDC home page (since a list of Technologies is right there) - Create a new wiki page that lists all relevant projects. I took sipaq's comments from the newsgroup as a guide and put together a draft Technologies page on the wiki. This is rough, but if we decide to go with this we can ask for help from the community to clean it up. http://wiki.mozilla.org/Mozilla.org:Technology_List The downside of the first option is that it won't be a complete list of everything that is currently on the Projects page. The upside of the first option is that it will at least be current since updating a full list of every Mozilla technology is hard and will easily get out of date again if we are able to update it now. Does anyone have a preference for either of these choices? After we make a decision about this we can go ahead and review the new project pages and make them live.
David, thanks for moving this forward. IMO both options are equally good. The second page can also be moved to devmo to make it more "official". Since you pushed this issue so much forward, I think it would be fine if you would just decide which course to take. Everything is better than the current status quo and we risk discussing this thing to the death.
My preference is to link to MDC. If we find someone who wants to own the technology list, we can move the draft list on the wiki over to MDC and then change the link on the Featured Projects page. I'll post a new attachment with this link next.
Attached is a completed version of the Featured Projects page with a link to MDC for the Technology Projects section. Unless anyone has any additional comments or suggestions, this is ready to go live. I'll wait until the end of the week and then make the following changes: check-in: the Featured Projects page as projects/index.html the Mozilla-Based Applications page as projects/mozilla-based.html redirect: http://www.mozilla.org/tools.html to http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Mozilla_Development_Tools http://www.mozilla.org/projects/other-projects.html and http://www.mozilla.org/university/HOF.html to http://www.mozilla.org/projects/mozilla-based.html
Attachment #293515 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Originally you were also going to "Update the current project list and move it to www.mozilla.org/projects/allprojects.html (or something similiar) or split up the list into several different pages based on type of project". Is that still the intent?
I agree with the plan to put the list on MDC.
Re comment #46, thanks for pointing that out. I'll redirect that too. Re comment #45, I think that we have updated the project list and split things into several different pages based on type of project. However, these pages right now don't list every single project currently on the Projects page since many of them are no longer active. If we want to make sure every project currently on the Projects page is still linked to from the Featured Projects page, I would suggest two options: - Create a Technologies list on MDC that has all projects both active and archived. That was the thought behind the draft page at http://wiki.mozilla.org/Mozilla.org:Technology_List - Create an archived version of the current Projects page either on www.mozilla.org or on the www-archive.mozilla.org site once it is available and then link to it from the Featured Projects page. If we want to go with the first option, we'll need to find someone who can own that page. If we can't find someone to own that page, I can copy the current Projects list to www.mozilla.org/projects/archive.html when I check in the other changes.
Since it sounds like we had a consensus on everything except the last issue about the Technology list, I've gone ahead and done the following: - checked in the new projects/index.html and projects/mozilla-based.html files and moved the previous index.html page to projects/list.html and then linked to that from the 'See more Mozilla technologies' link - set up redirects for the following files (I'll also remove these files when I get a chance): http://www.mozilla.org/tools.html http://www.mozilla.org/projects/other-projects.html http://www.mozilla.org/university/HOF.html http://www.mozilla.org/university/hof.xml Moving the old Projects page to projects/list.html is just a short-term fix that allows the rest of the content to go live. I think we still want to get rid of that page and replace it with something on MDC or something on the archive site.
On February 1st, I plan to switch the two Featured Mozilla-Based Applications on the Projects page from Miro and Songbird to Flock and Open Komodo. Just wanted to send a note since this would be the first time that projects have been switched out on this page. If there's no objections, I'll just go ahead and switch those two projects each month without posting in this bug. If you'd like to suggest applications to feature for a given month, feel free to contact me.
Product: mozilla.org → Websites
The old Projects list is still hanging around the www.mozilla.org site and I suggest we get rid of it by doing the following: 1. Add a couple more categories to the current page at www.mozilla.org/projects 2. Agree that not everything currently listed on the old Projects page needs to still be considered a project For 1, is suggest we create a new Mozilla Technologies page and a new Mozilla Specifications page. The Technologies page would include chunks of code that are being actively developed now by the community (they can be reused by others but they aren't packaged as end-user applications such as Firefox). This would include: Gecko, Necko, NSPR, NSS, Prism, Rhino, SpiderMonkey, Tamarin, XULRunner, XPCOM (others can be added if I'm missing anything). The Specifications page would include the languages the community has created that are used by Mozilla products as well as by others. This would include: XBL, XUL, MozSearch (maybe also Microsummaries and JavaScript or others). For 2, there are several items listed as projects on the old page that I think are better defined in different ways today. For example, there is a link to the Marketing project, but I consider this to be a community effort more than a project. I think this includes other things such as evangelism, localization, etc. My suggestion is to not move these over to the new Projects page because they're already covered in other places, such as in the Community and Contribute sections of www.mozilla.org. I think doing both of these steps will allow us to pull all of the active projects off of the old Projects page and then move that over to the archive site. Thoughts?
Attached file Proposed new Mozilla Technologies page (obsolete) —
Attachment #341680 - Flags: review?(samuel.sidler)
Attachment #341682 - Flags: review?(samuel.sidler)
Assignee: nobody → david
Comment on attachment 341680 [details] Proposed new Mozilla Technologies page > Gecko is the layout engine that reads web content, such as HTML, CSS, XUL, and JavaScript, and renders it on user's screen or print it. In XUL-based applications Gecko is used to render the application's user interface as well. "... layout engine that ... renders it on user's screen or print it." That sentence doesn't make much sense. :) How about just ending with "renders it on screen." Printing is mostly dead and I don't see why we need to specifically call it out. > SpiderMonkey is Gecko's JavaScript engine written in C. It is used in various Mozilla products, including Firefox, and is available under MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-license. I see no reason to call out the license for SpiderMonkey when no other technology has its license mentioned. End that sentence with "Firefox." > XULRunner is a Mozilla runtime package that can be used to bootstrap XUL+XPCOM applications that are as rich as Firefox and Thunderbird. It will provide mechanisms for installing, upgrading, and uninstalling these applications. Rich? Who's paying for all these millionaire applications? I know what you mean, but I can't think of a better word. For some reason, all that comes to mind is "featureful"........ Yeah. > <P>If you'd like to find out more about these Mozilla technologies or if you are looking for developer documentation, please visit the <A href="http://developer.mozilla.org/En">Mozilla Developer Center</A>.</P> Remove the En here. It's not really needed. r=me with those fixes. Note that I didn't check all your markup (but I'm sure you'll run a validator on it). Just a nugget of trivia for fun: Which recent AOL project uses NSS, NSPR, *and* Talkback?
Attachment #341680 - Flags: review?(samuel.sidler) → review+
Comment on attachment 341682 [details] Proposed new Mozilla Specifications page > <H3><A class="producttitle" href="http://developer.mozilla.org/en/JavaScript"><IMG width="50" height="50" style="display: block; margin-bottom: 30px;" class="featured" alt="" src="../images/mozhead-50.gif"/><STRONG>JavaScript</STRONG></A></H3> > JavaScript is a small, lightweight, object-oriented, cross-platform scripting language that was pioneered by the Netscape browser and is now an industry standard supported by the Mozilla community and other browser vendors. Since you're calling it out as a specification, maybe we should call "JavaScript" by its proper name, "ECMAScript", at least in parentheses? > The XML Binding Language (XBL) is a language for describing bindings that can be attached to elements in other documents. The element that the binding is attached to, called the bound element, acquires the new behavior specified by the binding. This is a totally confusing description. Can we ask someone for something better? (My mind wandered... bindings and elements bind to the bound element in a binding element...) > The XML User Interface Language (XUL) is Mozilla's language that lets you build feature-rich cross platform applications that can run connected or disconnected from the Internet. Web developers will learn XUL quickly and can start building applications right away. I think that line means you can have XUL in the browser content area, but that's not what it sounds like. I'd like to see it rewritten to be a bit more explanatory. Maybe: "... applications that can run either within a browser window or as a standalone application." I also think it's fun that you think web developers will learn it quickly. You're such an optimist! > <P>If you'd like to find out more about these Mozilla technologies or if you are looking for developer documentation, please visit the <A href="http://developer.mozilla.org/En">Mozilla Developer Center</A>.</P> Same note here about not adding "En". I'm going to r- because I'm not sure what to do about XBL. Everything else is minor, but I think that needs to be fixed.
Attachment #341682 - Flags: review?(samuel.sidler) → review-
Comment on attachment 341683 [details] [diff] [review] Patch for adding new Technologies and Specifications page to Featured Projects page >+ Gecko is the layout engine that reads web content, such as HTML, CSS, XUL, and JavaScript, and renders it on user's screen or print it. In XUL-based applications Gecko is used to render the application's user interface as well. Use the fixed description from comment 55. >+ The XML User Interface Language (XUL) is Mozilla's language that lets you build feature-rich cross platform applications that can run connected or disconnected from the Internet. Web developers will learn XUL quickly and can start building applications right away. Use the updated summary from comment 56. With those fixes, r=me.
Attachment #341683 - Flags: review?(samuel.sidler) → review+
I mostly copied and pasted the descriptions for the technologies and specifications from MDC, so any changes we make we may want to change on MDC as well. I'll talk to Sheppy about this and get his suggestions for better descriptions.
I agree with all of Sam's suggestions. This looks like a pretty good list to me. I think we do need to keep calling it "JavaScript" because that's a better-known name than ECMAScript, but we should probably mention ECMAScript too, in the description. As for XBL, how about a description more like: "The XML Binding Language (XBL) is used to bind elements to scripts, CSS, event handlers, and so forth, which can be stored in a separate document. This allows the behavior of elements to be changed without complicating the markup itself."
Attached is a new Mozilla Specifications page that addresses the feedback from comment #56.
Attachment #341682 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #341995 - Flags: review?(samuel.sidler)
Attached is a new Mozilla Technologies page that addresses the feedback from comment #55. Re nugget of trivia, I don't know. What is it?
Attachment #341680 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #341997 - Flags: review?(samuel.sidler)
Comment on attachment 341995 [details] Proposed new Mozilla Specifications page r=me
Attachment #341995 - Flags: review?(samuel.sidler) → review+
Comment on attachment 341997 [details] Proposed new Mozilla Technologies page r=me The mystery is solved! http://beta.aol.com/projects.php?project=aimformac
Attachment #341997 - Flags: review?(samuel.sidler) → review+
Closing as fixed. The new Technologies and Specifications pages are up and the main Featured Projects page has been updated as well. The old Project page has been removed and that URL now redirects to the Featured Projects page. If there's anything else from the old Projects page that needs to be listed somewhere, feel free to reopen this bug. For reference, you can still find the old Projects page at http://www-archive.mozilla.org/projects/list.html
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 16 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
I think the titles of these documents are a bit misleading. How come the "Specifications" page is called "Specifications" and not "Technologies"? Isn't XUL a technology? And given that ECMA is standardizing it, why is ECMAScript a 'Mozilla Specification', but not the DOM or CSS? Also can we be more specific in our title of the "Technologies" page? XUL is also technology that we have developed, but it's not listed there because it's not a piece of software.
I think there is a basic difference between these two types of projects and they don't make sense being on the same list if we're grouping things together in different categories. For instance, XULRunner is a chunk of code that does something and XUL is a language that people can use to do something. We can certainly make those distinctions clearer by adding more text to the intro or changing the titles (maybe Mozilla Languages is better than Mozilla Specifications)? As for adding JavaScript to the Specifications page but not other standards like CSS, JavaScript historically has its origins with Netscape and the early Mozilla community. If having JavaScript there doesn't feel right we can remove it and leave just those specifications or languages that the community has created since the Mozilla project started.
No, I agree with keeping two lists. I just don't think the distinction is clear enough. Also /I/ understand why JavaScript is there, I just don't think most other people will.
I'm fine with changing the names of either of those two pages or improving the text on those pages. Feel free to make suggestions if there is a better way to categorize or present these pages.
Would it make sense to rename "Mozilla Technologies" to "Mozilla Platform"? Haven't thought of a good name for the "Mozilla Specifications" page. I'm not even convinced it's necessary, since it just links to MDC, where all those kinds of things are indexed anyway. Also, there are other projects we host, for example we offer the source code to Tinderbox and Bonsai IIRC. How can people find those?
I agree that all of the content in the new Technologies and Specifications pages are on MDC already, but I think this fits in with the site's role of being a gateway to other parts of the community. Re names, those various technologies in various combinations may make up the Mozilla Platform but is each piece individually a Platform? To get a better idea of what a better name would be, can you explain your concern with the word Technologies? As for developer tools such as Tinderbox and Bonsai, we did have a Developer Tools section on the Projects page for a while but then I removed it because it seemed like none of the tools (except for Bugzilla) was actively being maintained. For instance, now that we're using Hg is Bonsai still something we as a community actively develop? I'm happy to add that section back in if we'd like. For reference, the Tools page we were linking to was: http://developer.mozilla.org/En/Mozilla_Development_Tools If we do add a Developer Tools section back we should discuss if Bugzilla should be there or in the Mozilla Applications section. It had originally been included in the Tools section but I moved it up when I got rid of that section.
My problem with "Technologies" is that it's very vague, and if you consider it broad enough to include Gecko, Spidermonkey, and NSS, all of which are software libraries, then I can't see how you can exclude XUL and JavaScript and Firefox itself. Wrt Specifications and Technologies already being on MDC, yes, but the stuff on the Technologies page are products we develop and there's a clear grouping there. That should stay. The stuff on the Specifications page is technology /implemented/ by those products: unlike everything else on that page it is not software. And there's also no clear grouping there because there's no clear division between what's on that page vs. other technologies we implement. If the reason we are grouping these is "history began with Netscape", I don't think that's a very compelling reason to have the page. And if that's the criteria, then why isn't e.g. RSS there?
(In reply to comment #71) > Wrt Specifications and Technologies already being on MDC, yes, but the stuff on > the Technologies page are products we develop and there's a clear grouping > there. That should stay. The stuff on the Specifications page is technology > /implemented/ by those products: unlike everything else on that page it is not > software. And there's also no clear grouping there because there's no clear > division between what's on that page vs. other technologies we implement. If > the reason we are grouping these is "history began with Netscape", I don't > think that's a very compelling reason to have the page. And if that's the > criteria, then why isn't e.g. RSS there? XUL, XBL, and even JavaScript (contrary to ECMAScript) are specifications made up by the Mozilla project in its 10 years of existence and/or one where we spearheaded further development. XUL and XBL are specs/"standards" we actually developed, JavaScript has been moved forward by us as a dialect of ECMAScript (but it's not 100% identical AFAIK). I think it's good and valid to have those technologies we created or moved forward in our own way listed somewhere on this portal to the Mozilla project. And those in the specifications section are actually functionality specs, not code implementing those, like Gecko, Necko, etc.
Re comment #71, can you clarify what your suggestion is -- would you like to delete the Specifications page, move those Specifications into the Technologies page, or rename the Specifications page?
I'd like to add KaiRo's explanation. "The Mozilla community participates in the development of different languages" is so soft that I could easily include CSS and HTML5 in its scope. I'd rename the Technologies page "Mozilla Platform Libraries" (the only one that might not fit that definition is XULrunner) and the Specifications page "Mozilla Technology Specifications".
That's the best I can come up with today.
I'm not a fan of "Mozilla Platform Libraries" because neither XULRunner (as you mentioned) nor Gecko really fit into that title. The only true "libraries" on that page, in the traditional sense, are Necko, NSPR, and NSS. Of course, I can't think of anything "better", but I'm happy with "Mozilla Technologies", personally. As an aside, can we file a new bug for this? Tracking it in a resolved bug is a pain and this bug is clearly resolved as filed, we're just improving it now. :)
Re comment #74, I took Kairo's comments and used those to update the intro text on the Specifications page. Re comment #76, If there are further tweaks to the text or suggestions for changes to the page titles, let's open another bug.
Component: www.mozilla.org → General
Product: Websites → www.mozilla.org
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Creator:
Created:
Updated:
Size: