flac dev - Dec 2012 - The FLAC website

On 13-12-12 13:20, Max Horn wrote:
> On 13.12.2012, at 03:57, Conrad Parker wrote:
>> IIRC the xiph sites use server-side includes (apache SSI) for headers
>> and footers. [...]
>>
> Yay, yet another version of the website :-).
>
> I am not really a fan of SSI myself, but if this is what is there, and
people are familiar with it, I think it should also do just fine.
I really had something like this in mind when I asked. After looking 
into it, it seems nice and simple to me, little can go wrong with this
> As I said, another alternative would be to use a static website generator.
Yes, but this has some drawbacks as well. I like to keep things simple 
until the very last step (apache rendering in this case) to keep it 
transparant. It might very well be that Josh used a static website 
generator, but as we don't have the source, we're stuck with these 
static files now. Finally, the don't like the idea of having two 
different but similar files. Source and binaries are very different, but 
static webpages and 'static website generator files' usually look a lot 
alike.

I'd vote for SSI then. If no one else takes the job of converting it, I 
will, but not within the next two months.

On 18.12.2012, at 17:43, Martijn van Beurden wrote:
> On 13-12-12 13:20, Max Horn wrote:
>> On 13.12.2012, at 03:57, Conrad Parker wrote:
>>> IIRC the xiph sites use server-side includes (apache SSI) for
headers
>>> and footers. [...]
>>> 
>> Yay, yet another version of the website :-).
>> 
>> I am not really a fan of SSI myself, but if this is what is there, and
people are familiar with it, I think it should also do just fine.
> 
> I really had something like this in mind when I asked. After looking 
> into it, it seems nice and simple to me, little can go wrong with this
> 
>> As I said, another alternative would be to use a static website
generator.
> 
> Yes, but this has some drawbacks as well. I like to keep things simple 
> until the very last step (apache rendering in this case) to keep it 
> transparant.
I don't understand how that is an argument *against* a static website
generator; to me it sounds like one *for* a static website generator :-).

Note in particular that testing websites using SSI is rather annoying, because
you need to put the files on a webserver (possibly a local one) that is
configured very close to the regular webserver just in order to preview your
changes. With a static generator, you simply get HTML files you can preview
locally.

Anyway, this discussion is a bit silly, I guess; in the end the content matter,
and I am pretty sure I could convert a site written using SSI to something else,
or vice versa, with a simple script and an hour of work. So if you, Martijn, are
willing to generously do some helping work, but prefer to do it in SSI, then all
the power to you!


The important bits are others, and  they need comments and actions by Erik and
Rich. I'll write a separate email to make they this doesn't get lost in
the noise :).

Cheers,
Max

Max Horn wrote:

<snip>
> The important bits are others, and  they need comments and actions
> by Erik and Rich.
Ralph maybe?

My current understanding is that we intend to keep the web site
on flac.sf.net and have a mirror on xiph.org/flac.

On flac.sf.net, we probably don't have SSI, so that's a vote for
a static site. I am however all in favor of whatever can be done
to make updating and maintenance of the site easier.

Erik
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Erik de Castro Lopo
http://www.mega-nerd.com/