Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> I do not wish to detract from the importance of core either though. Part
>> of me thinks the page should look like this:
>>
>> Core (link to page with core members)
>
> I don't like the split-into-a-bunch-of-tiny-pages idea. The page isn't
> large enough to require that yet, IMHO. And there's space for definition
> as well, as long as it's nice and short (which it should be).
One option would be that the second page would be as it is now but have
internal refs. That way we have the short front page but solve the
second page is too short problem.
With that could even come in page navigation on top of each list that
allows navigation between the various topics.
>
>
>> * Definition of core, purpose etc....
>
> +1 on actually defining that so outsiders can know about it. You'll just
> have to get -core to agree on a wording for it though :-P
>
:)
Joshua D. Drake