On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 04:46:21PM +0800, Malcolm Tredinnick wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 11:28:57AM +0300, Ville Pätsi wrote:
> > Uhm. Funny enough, right now there is a big discussion in
> > gnome-webmaster list about wml.
>
> It's not just on gnome-webmaster -- it's raging across a number of
> Gnome lists. In amongst some of the crazed hand waving and finger
> pointing one of the good points raised that hasn't been mentioned
> here (at least, not clearly) is standards compliance.
>
> Some of the complaints about the current Gnome site and it's
> potential replacement is how to ensure that it is possible for
> people to validate that what they are about to commit will generate
> valid HTML. Here "valid" means conforming to the W3C standard for
> whichever version of HTML is chosen and also passing through
> something like htmltidy without complaint. The former is obvious,
> the latter maybe not so common (try running the current
> www.gimp.org/index.html through tidy -- lots of warnings).
>
> That greatly increases the chances that whatever you have will
> degrade nicely to different browsers.
I am unfortunately _very_ out of touch with web standards - I
preferred HTML in about 1995. I think it's safe to say that however
this gets done, the HTML in the "content" should be limited to <p>,
<br>, <a>, <b>, <i>, and everything else should come from a template,
one way or another.
On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 02:20:24PM +0300, Tuomas Kuosmanen wrote:
> But the first thing to think about is NOT how it looks. It is what
> we want to put there, what the users need, and how to organize it
> nicely so it will serve the needs of the users and the Gimp project.
I've tried to build things so that these decisions can be made in
parallel - that is, if we decide to stick with the simple left-side
tree-style navigation, what actually appears in the tree can be
changed without much worry.
> Once we have some serious stuff done on that area, I can even see if
> could put some "free time" aside for doing the look, if you want.
Cool, I was hoping you would say that.
> > 1. dynamic - php/*sql - easy to code, offers many possibilities, we use
> > it at the GUG and it's excellent for those purposes IMHO
> Beware that PHP can get slow under heavy load if you dont do it right.
> It is very easy to have all kinds of stupid spaghetti tricks there, as
> well as get lost in the table labyrinth when you include stuff a lot.
Yes. That's why my Perl stuff has a _very_ short path to decide
whether there is a cached copy of the page -- then the spaghetti can
commence for the unlucky soul who is the first to visit a page that
has just been edited. :)
> It is easy to generate static pages via Cron if it becomes a problem
> though. ("snarf http://www.gimp.org/dynamic.html static.html")
Indeed - when global changes are made to the site, I nuke all the
cached files and use a recursive wget to force a regeneration.
Cheers,
Tom
--
Tom Rathborne tomr@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.aceldama.com/~tomr/ |
I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my | H
complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the | A
greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission, and I want to help you. | L
