Quesiton is whether we really wnat that? Is it something that VisCom is
really hyped about, is it an issue for WebCom to do it? If anybody would
consent to actually doing I would suggest that it is a good idea.
Quesiton is whether we really wnat that? Is it something that VisCom is
really hyped about, is it an issue for WebCom to do it? If anybody would
consent to actually doing I would suggest that it is a good idea.
I think it is a good idea, especially for building some idea of stats.
I fixed up the link and pointed it to a small 150x67px version. In my opinion, we need a few different sizes and the LOGO + Member/Sponsor modified versions too. I just took a quite minute to make sure this link at least worked. I removed all the 'tentative' language from that section too.
On 1/29/07, Tyler Mitchell <tylermitchell@shaw.ca> wrote:
On 28-Jan-07, at 8:45 AM, Arnulf Christl wrote:
> I cleaned up the Wiki and added links to our Logo, logo use, FAQ and
> trademark guidelines. While doing that i stumbled across a
> referenced logo
> script and reworded it with "OSGeo". But it does not exist at all as
> Markus kindly pointed out:
> http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php?
> title=Logo_Use&curid=1385&diff=11062&oldid=11060&rcid=9520
>
> Quesiton is whether we really wnat that? Is it something that
> VisCom is
> really hyped about, is it an issue for WebCom to do it? If anybody
> would
> consent to actually doing I would suggest that it is a good idea.
I think it is a good idea, especially for building some idea of stats.
I fixed up the link and pointed it to a small 150x67px version. In
my opinion, we need a few different sizes and the LOGO + Member/
Sponsor modified versions too. I just took a quite minute to make
sure this link at least worked. I removed all the 'tentative'
language from that section too.
I have added a clickable version there, too, and added it to
the GRASS site.