> doesn't seem to be any particular reason to require JS for basic functionality on a documentation site.)
Js is widely used these days. E.g., ReadTheDocs use Js [1]. Users without Js in the browser may be redirected to a static html version of the website. This version uses the material design [2] concept. CSS - although minimal - came with the library which allowed for faster coding time, focusing on the content and functionality. For someone with basic React knowledge the website is easy to maintain. SPA arch allows for faster navigation between the pages. Client side rendering frees up the server. The content largely follows the content from the existing website, with an attempt at improving content organisation and navigation. Does rendering by search robots need to be verified or may we take it as most likely working? [1] https://docs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/development/standards.html#background [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_Design
_______________________________________________ cabal-devel mailing list cabal-devel@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel
