> In article <3D24097B.B92D9C6E at cincom.com>, mroberts at cincom.com 
> says...
> 
>>Cees de Groot wrote:
>>
>>>M. Roberts <mroberts at cincom.com> said:
>>>
>>>>If the web site hasn't been updated since 2000, how would you expect
>>>>anybody outside the Squeak community to know that it's "continuously
>>>>changing"?
>>>>
>>>Well, I think the website has been updated - IIRC, it was completely
>>>redesigned last year.
>>>
>>There are no dates on any of the pages. Nothing indicates that the site has been
>>updated. What "you think" and what is evident to somebody outside of our
>>community who looks at those pages are two entirely different things, no?


At first I wasn't sure where M. Roberts got the idea that the squeak.org 
site hadn't been updated since 2000, but now I see that when you click 
on the "ABOUT" link on the left, you see the "Where is Squeak Headed?" 
and "Entering 2000" (and 1999 and 1998) sections, which are over two 
years old.  GET RID OF THIS STUFF NOW, please... it does more harm than 
good.

These particular pages, which are prone to becoming out of date, don't 
need to be in static pages.  This (now historical) information is on the 
Swiki if someone really wants to dig around for it.  It seems that the 
rest of the squeak.org site content is relatively immune to becoming out 
of date, so the rest is okay.  (Except for the download page, which we 
need to keep up to date, obviously.)

- Doug Way
   Detroit, MI