George Michaelson <ggm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> * It trivially can be translated
> It has one major drawback: a lot of people think its ugly.
I don't think it has to be that way.
> The newer kind, the responsive reactive javascript kind, is far
You use a bunch of words with are not always forced together.
I understand responsive web sites to mean that they look good on different
size screens. This means doing layout with CSS and div rather than tables.
(HTML4 vs HTML5).
www.ietf.org currently uses a mix of methods.
beta.ietf.org seems to rely on JS for menus and the like (I could be wrong),
while in fact there are pure CSS methods to do this.
The industry has moved beyond JS for many of these things and back to CSS for
reasons of mobile devices, loading time and the like.
I think we could move forward, and I don't mind the new site as I hardly ever
use the old site. But we do need to make sure that we are using the
technology in appropriate moderation.
> isn't that actually close to what we want? Aren't we actually closer
> to github, a wiki, and a calendar, than anything else?
For datatracker, I think we are.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature