Folded `all/README.md` into top level `README.md`.
Removed `all/summary.txt`.
Moved from `all/all.tar.bz2` to `ioccc.tar.bz2`.
Removed the `all/` directory.
Added `bin/tar-all.sh` form a compressed tarball for an IOCCC year:
```sh
bin/tar-all.sh -v 1 -W
```
Improved `bin/gen-years.sh`.
Added `make form_all_tarball` to `make quick_www` and `make www` in the top level Makefile.
Performed `make www` given the above. Some entry compressed tarballs
were updated due to recent updates.
This is a HUGE commit and this task is not done. There are still some
changes that might need to be discussed and since so much is done here I
think it's better to let this go through and then make sure everything
is okay. When the remaining references are discussed they can also be
changed.
I did NOT include changes in the tmp/OLD_manifest directory.
Some of the changes in this commit (it might be exhaustive but it might
not be - not sure):
- In the Makefiles the WINNERS was renamed AUTHORS.
- References to winners.html were changed to authors.html.
- The FAQ named anchor 'fix_a_winner' was renamed 'fix_an_entry'.
- The JSON fields (or whatever they're called) 'winner_id' and
'winner_JSON_format_version' were changed so that 'winner' is 'entry'.
- In scripts for entries 'IOCCC winner' was changed to 'IOCCC entry'.
- 'winners_text' is now 'entries_text'. It might be better to be
'entry_text' as it's per entry but this was not noticed at first. Since
this is easy to fix I am holding off on this for the meantime.
- The script tmp/update-manifest.sh now has the commit log messages
changed to the correct terms as well.
The index.html files were updated as well with any of the above
changes.
There are some references that should NOT be updated. Two examples
caught (and maybe more have slipped through that will have to be changed
back): in 1984/anonymous/README.md the author wrote back to Landon after
being told about the famous tattoo and they used the words:
.. my entry will be the first IOCCC winner ..
but since this comes from the author it should remain so.
The other one is that winners.html should still refer to winners.html as
it informs people that it's been moved to authors.html (it does redirect
too but even so if it was changed it would defeat the purpose of the
message).
With paths like authors.html I tried to copy paste so that hopefully
there are no typos. It is possible that I did not end up doing this with
all but these can be fixed when discovered.
For the top level and year level README.md, where email are found,
a note was added to the effect that email addresses found above are
for historical purposes only, and should not be used today.
Old references to asking for fixes, comments, when content was used,
and next contest links were replaced with a general reference to the FAQ.
Harmonized the Copyright and License and copyright dates.
Now using Creative Commons "CC BY-SA 4.0 DEED Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0
International".
The above Creative Commons will become the standard for the IOCCC.
Replaced old `png/by-sa-3.0-88x31.png` with a new ` png/by-sa.88x31.png` icon.
Updated the top level HTML files to use the license.
Make links markdown format (since it's a markdown document).
Make some text bold and other text italic to help it all stand out.
Fix link to GitHub winner repo: it said it was the 'IOCCC winners GitHub
repository' but it actually linked to https://www.ioccc.org/index.html
which seems to be a mistake.
This change is one that is probably subjective which is why the
explanation below. It said:
Please do NOT bookmark nor link to this experimental web site:
Now it's true that following 'not' a nor can be used before the second
or further of two[0] or more alternatives (first one being introduced in
this case by nor) to suggest that they each are false or do not happen
but somehow the wording:
Please do NOT bookmark or link to this experimental web site:
flows better in my head. Again this is subjectively better and it might
even be a controversial thing but this feels better anyway.
Not that this is a double negative but on the subject of language a
couple fun facts about double negatives: in standard Spanish and Polish
they are used AND it was not until after the 16th century that they were
frowned up on in English.
Question: if !! (not not) cancels out the ! (meaning it's not negative
or rather it's true) is !!! (not not not or false) a not (false), a
double not (true) or a triple not (false) ? :-)
[0] Actually in this case it should be one or more alternatives but this
is either a mistake in OED or me being too literal (which is very
possible). 'Possibility' would be a better word to use as would 'choice'
(but there are certainly other, uh, choices).
Landon Curt Noll