Wedge

It's more tied in to the name than the fulcrum logo was for SMF (being a simple machine)

Yeah, I think we have our winner... :)
Except for the 'w' being a bit flat, but I'm sure no one will notice that.
As for the wedge icon, it may be the 'next thing to go'. Depends on the audience's reaction to it I guess... But I'm sure they'll appreciate having something 'graphical' in the logo. Also, this is what I'm using on badges right now. I could try and putting the 'we' favicon into it instead, but... Well, it always takes a long time to do these logos so no thank you for now :P

+1 Pete. It took me years to realize it was a fulcrum at all...

I do... out of the three you cranked out last, that's the one I dig, of you know what I mean.

I really dig it too, now... :)
I like both the version we have in the banner, and the text-free and icon-free version I put into the Wedge package. They both work and they're not too crowded really.

 8-)

Liked the one with the slash.  :cool:

The slash -- you mean the empty line in 'we'?

That one is great  :cool:

Yeah but as we discussed earlier, it's 'too much detail' in the logo... It already has the stylized G, and the differently-colored W...

I don't think it should be changed; it looks good as it is - interesting without being too busy. It looks good in the current Wedge theme too :)

And in the Nix styling as well! (I have it as the default styling on my site... Yes, I like to think Wedge is what Yourasoft should have done from day one, and we're going to make their dream come true :P)

Oh, btw, logo is broken in the SSI examples page but I figured we'll rewrite that anyway.

I have yet to start working on the layout for any of the files in other/*.
Might as well start doing it...

So, basically, one of the issues I have with SSI, is validation. It seems logical to use HTML5 in SSI because it's used in Wedge. I can only imagine that parent websites will be switching to HTML5, too, and even in XHTML they'll still consider HTML5 code as valid.
However, I don't think we can expect parent pages to load index.css before calling the SSI code... Meaning that any classes in it will be ignored. That's a problem.
Only, many tables are declared as "ssi_table", which itself is declared in index.css, so I guess it can be expected that parent page owners will simply 'copy' the CSS information from index.css into their own stuff, if they really don't want to include our CSS files.

Also, I'm having a bug in ssi_examples.php... It doesn't finish the page, instead crashing on ssi_boardNews()... Hmm, will have a look.

I'd argue that most of SSI stuff is a non issue where validation is concerned.

The SSI functions are called without index.css in most cases, which is fine. It's only if they use template_header or (worse, IMO) manually invoke template layers etc, that index.css is needed and really, most people aren't smart enough to even copy CSS, you'd be surprised how often most folks want to mash up SSI.php itself rather than use the return array option that nearly every function has... >_<

Let's just not care about 'em :P