From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68B0BBC84 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:29:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j2UFT2gW001400 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:29:02 +0200 Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA02244 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:29:01 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from yquem.inria.fr (yquem.inria.fr [128.93.8.37]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j2UFT1lu012877; Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:29:01 +0200 Received: by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix, from userid 18180) id 32C22BC84; Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:29:01 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:29:01 +0200 From: Xavier Leroy To: Martin Sandin Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Still problems with the main ocaml web page Message-ID: <20050330152901.GC18175@yquem.inria.fr> References: <20050330141949.67864.qmail@web50904.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050330141949.67864.qmail@web50904.mail.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 424AC5BE.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 424AC5BD.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 macos:01 macos:01 binary:01 binary:01 unix:01 doligez:01 binaries:01 binaries:01 compile:01 volunteers:01 dev:01 reproduce:01 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Level: > The site works fine in Opera and Mozilla, and is a lot > nicer than the old, but it doesn't work in IE. The > fact that Windows isn't the no 1 priority of the OCaml > team, or the community, is both obvious (witness the > lack of 3.08.3 binaries for Windows) and > understandable. But I am still surprised that it was > even considered acceptable to release a site which > entierly excludes the 80+% majority browser (figure is > likely to be lower in the dev community, but no way > less than 50%). Of course the new site was tested with IE, and it works just fine on my Windows installation. Something is happening that 1- we don't understand, and 2- we can't reproduce. Another user suggested this might have to do with language preferences in the browser, which could expose a problem in content (language) negociation between the browser and server. Any constructive advice on how to attack this problem is most welcome. Concerning 3.08.3 binaries for Windows, please keep the following in mind. We have volunteers who do a great job of packaging binaries for various flavors of Linux. Other Unix users just compile from sources and don't complain. Doligez does the MacOS X binaries, but that's because he uses MacOS X for all his computing. It's only for Windows that I haven't found anyone to prepare the binary packages in my place. So, yes, you'll have to wait till I don't have anything more urgent to do, and that will probably take several weeks. If you're unhappy about that, why don't you build a binary distribution yourself? I'll be extremely grateful. - Xavier Leroy