Re: [Repo-criteria-discuss] What's needed to publish the evaluations (aka the longest email ever {aka two specific tasks})}

[Aaron Wolf]

On 04/22/2016 09:51 AM, Mike Gerwitz wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 13:17:19 -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> Regardless of the meta things, the wording on the Sourceforge report
>> needs to be clear at least. It could at least say "these functions won't
>> work with LibreJS on" with no further explanation, rather than the
>> confusing wording I saw.
> 
> https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.html
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> The press release hasn't gone out yet, so Zak requested that we still
> keep quiet about it.
> 

My first thought is that the lousy underline-style of links makes the F
letters look like E's. :P

"Important site functionality doesn't work without JavaScript, or with
LibreJS enabled" is simply grammatically unclear writing. The comma
isn't valid, it's a punctuation error. It's hard to parse this. How
about just saying "Important site functionality doesn't work when
LibreJS is enabled"? The link to the criteria itself is enough to
understand what that really means.

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature