Raphael Quinet schrieb: > Yes, of course. But it could be even better if most of the site could > be based on static files that are generated once (by applying some > templates around the CVS files), so that the pages do not have to be > re-generated for every request. This reduces the load on the server, > and more importantly this ensures that all pages can be cached, both > in the user's browser cache and in large caching proxies. This would be ok for me. And there would be no "error - wheres the database?" errors on the pages. :-)) > Most information that is provided on the gimp.org web site is static > anyway. It does not need to be updated frequently (except for the > news section, but even that is not updated more than once per day) and > we do not need dynamic elements. This could change if we introduce a > web-based discussion forum or some online polls, but there is already > the GUG site for that so this is not needed on the main gimp site. I'll put it on the "what-we-dont-want-to-do" list. > [...lotsofstuffdeleted...] Maintainability is very important. I get the creeps if I look at the ugly-hacks I wrote for my web-projects only a year ago. How would that code look to you? Ugh! > So I do not care if nobody says: "Wow, what a nice design!" when > viewing the gimp.org site, but I hope that many will say: "Wow, I did > not know that I could do this with the Gimp!" or even: "Wow, this Gimp > program seems to be easier to use and more powerful than my current > software." Thats exactly what I thought. But I think a great program deserves a really great webpage, and thus the page should be as good as it can be. Of course that would mean that it would not only be beautiful but also load fast, degrade gracefully to older browsers, guide the user through the site without him/her even noticing... and so on. There will be no wasted effort if the result is as good as we can imagine it now. :-)) Christoph -- http://home.bn-paf.de/smokey/
