[sf-lug] SF-LUG web page changes (was: Re: SF-LUG draft web page changes)

[Michael Paoli]

Meh ... some of the formatting inconsistencies were annoying me,
so, bit more:
$ rlog index.html 2>&1 | sed -ne '/^revision 1\.15$/q;/^-\{28\}$/,$p'
----------------------------
revision 1.18   locked by: sflugwww;
date: 2026/03/02 04:55:41;  author: sflugwww;  state: Exp;  lines: +1 -1
expanded the IPv6/IPv4 related text/links a bit
----------------------------
revision 1.17
date: 2026/03/02 04:48:50;  author: sflugwww;  state: Exp;  lines: +4 -4
moderate/minor format adjustments, mostly for consistency
----------------------------
revision 1.16
date: 2026/03/02 04:26:39;  author: sflugwww;  state: Exp;  lines: +7 -12
way tightened up and relocated the IPv6 and related, added etc. on the
Project stuff, changed http to https on links where generally having
CA trusted cert(s) present
----------------------------
$

On Sun, Mar 1, 2026 at 8:46 PM Michael Paoli <michael.paoli at berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
> And made some changes, summarized by the
> log message shown by the -m option and its
> argument (not a separate argument) as checked
> into RCS by the ci (check in) command:
> $ ci -d -l -M -m'way tightened up and relocated the IPv6 and related,
> added etc. on the Project stuff, changed http to https on links where
> generally having CA trusted cert(s) present' index.html
> RCS/index.html,v  <--  index.html
> new revision: 1.16; previous revision: 1.15
> done
> $
>
> references/excerpts & in-line comments:
>
> On Sat, Feb 28, 2026 at 9:51 PM Michael Paoli
> <michael.paoli at berkeley.edu> wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 28, 2026 at 8:08 PM Ron <ron at bclug.ca> wrote:
> > > Michael Paoli wrote on 2026-02-28 19:43:
> > Well, with all the votes tallied up for well over 30 days,
> > 100% in favor, so implemented.
> >
> > Version control under RCS, in both meanings of the word,
> > so yeah, that includes under
> > https://www.sf-lug.org/RCS/
> > and
> > file:///var/www/www.sf-lug.org/RCS/
> > see also: rcs(1), ci(1), co(1)
> >
> > > The IPv6 and IPv4 specific links - they could (IMHO) go away: there are
> > > On the other hand, they are kinda neat to test one's connectivity if one
> > > So, keep 'em, I say. (Flip. Flop.)
> > I'm kind'a inclined to keep 'em .. at least somewhere
> > on the page, but now, and especially with the larger text,
> > kind'a inclined to possibly further shrink - or more notably tighten
> > up the liks, reduce the text/empahsis, maybe/probably not have as
> > a separate section separated out by horizontal rules, etc.  Minor, but
> > yeah, I'm inclined to keep ... but further tighten up and deemphasize 'em.
> > Also is sometimes quite handy to have / know of separate links for such,
> > e.g. when one wants to check from a client where one may not to pick
> > specifically v4 or v6 - e.g. browser on "smart" phone.
>
> Well shrunk down and deemphasized (perhaps too much?), but
> hopefully generally steps in at least approximately the right direction,
> and net improvement(s).  Maybe next time I make the text and
> especially links, at least some moderate bit longer.  As they are,
> very hard (a single character for some of them) to click/follow from,
> e.g. high res small "smart phone" screen - or even hardly see 'em.