Ville Pätsi wrote: > > These 1.4K bytes were from Christoph Rauch, > > Agreed. Then... why not use WML. It's easy to learn and flexible enough > > No! The current GNOME-website is made with wml. And the problem is that wml is > a horrible piece of crap. The next generation GNOME-website will not use wml > because its a nightmare to maintain, not to mention incredibly difficult or > perhaps impossible to compile without some serious black magic. If we used wml > we would be where we are right now. Really? Do YOU have experiences with it? I use it for my pages (not big piece of art, but anyway: http://www.pvtnet.cz/www/pvt.benkovsk/gimp/ ) and it works. There are certainly some problems when using perl in divertions etc, but it easily allows you to use content-describing tagging (as SGML/XML) in addition to appearance-describing one (HTML). Foooor example, you could create download box with something like this: <box "red" "Download links"> <download "New GIMP" "ftp://ftp.gimp.org/....";> <download "New Potatoshop" "http://www.warez.org/.....";> </box> And it could make a nice coloured box with title and links with filesizes displayed. That said, I think it's not so important what to use, provided that it will be free and easily accessible, makes webmaster's routine work easy and will keep the site clean as discussed recently. Regards, Jarda Benkovsky
