On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Terry Ellison <[email protected]>wrote:
> Kay, > > Surely this is looking at the issue the wrong way around. HTML is a lower > lever of abstraction. Yes, this suggestion makes life easier for the > maintainer but at the expense of extra complexity/difficulty for the > contributor -- especially as the average contributor isn't at ease working > in HTML, so will tend to use some form of WYSIWYG editor. Hence different > editors can end up laying out the HTML completely differently if they use > different tools to do this, so an svn differencing of two successive > versions with minor content changes could end up looking entirely different. > > If we are going to HTML then perhaps it might be appropriate on this > project to mandate the use of the OOo web editor for editing all such > content. Just a thought. > Terry-- Folks that have been maintaining areas of the OO.o website in the past have used HTML. So, I don't think the barrier would be any different now if we chose this, instead of Markdown, for the site. Plus, we need to import a LOT of pages, ALL in html, that we simple can NOT convert to markdown. Dave indicated the Apaches CMS gui tool also works with html, so I will play with this to see what's it's like. > Regards Terry > > > On 11/08/11 19:55, Kay Schenk wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Dave Fisher<[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> On Aug 11, 2011, at 9:12 AM, Kay Schenk wrote: >>> >>> I am proposing that we adopt plain HTML for the OOo website instead of >>>> >>> the current markdown (mdtext) implementation. >>> >>> We can mix and match. >>> >>> yes, but... mdtext is converted to html anyway. I just think the >> overhead -- >> i.e. maintenance by existing and "new" folks -- will be unweildy. >> >> >> I hesitate to make this recommendation given ALL the time and research >>>> >>> Dave and others have already spent on the current incubator website, but, >>> I >>> feel, given that we will be migrating a rather large existing site, it >>> makes >>> sense. >>> >>> Don't worry about me. What I've learned is useful to me even if we decide >>> to take another approach. >>> >>> How do you propose handling all of the Kenai wrapping? >>> >> >> uh...I'll be honest...I am not familiar with the " Kenai wrapping". And I >> dare say, probably few are. My *guess* is this in invovled in >> headers,footers, and ???? >> >> We might be able to ignore whatever this is and just get on with something >> WAY simpler for the time being. >> >> The new site won't be registering users and probably doesn't need a lot of >> >>> the current *.vm and *.html.html files. >>> >>> I also realize that doing this will "break" the ability to use the >>>> webgui >>>> >>> editing capability of the Apache CMS, forcing everyone to use svn for >>> page >>> updates. However, I don't have a good feel right now for the ultimate >>> impact >>> of that -- e.g. what do we expect in terms of web site editors. >>> >>> You really CAN edit HTML using the Apache CMS Web-Gui. It is just that I >>> currently like unwrapped body html. >>> >>> Oh--OK -- I hadn't tried this and this isn't what the web page about the >> CMS >> indicates. >> So, even better. >> >> >> >>> This would allow us to continue to use the default template system >>>> >>> (Dotiac::DTL) but eliminate the need for wrapping or intermixing markdown >>> text with normal HTML. HTML files shouldn't require any "wrapping" >>> functions >>> at all I think, since this is the indigenous format for web servers. We >>> would have to bypass header, footer and navigation items for anything >>> that >>> *isn't* html, like js, css files. >>> >>> In the back of my head this week I've been thinking about a way to use >>> properly formed html and then "rewrap" to apply consistent headers and >>> footers is forming. The idea is to use an xslt filter to extract html >>> from >>> the<head> and<body>. >>> >>> Well this may be super but unfortunately I am not knowledgable enough to >> really know what you're saying here. But isn't this the purpose of the >> template system -- to just patch on the headers, footers, anythng else? >> Again, I am thinking "project long-term". I think it's vital to put >> something in place that the regular web-jockey is familiar with. >> >> >> For the head - grab various elements including scripts and style. For the >>> body grab it all. There are at least two advantages: >>> >>> (1) Each html page can be separated and tested outside of site framework. >>> (2) Every html page published on the site automatically has the proper >>> framework. >>> >>> Unfortunately, I've had a very difficult time this week trying to find >>>> >>> any information on the setup details of Dotiac::DTL (documentation not >>> available) -- the relationship of the two .pm files to the template >>> areas, >>> etc. >>> >>> It took me sometime to understand how it works. If you follow the >>> instructions on running locally - website-local.mdtext - it ought to >>> work. >>> >>> OK--I still have NOT done that. The thing is the instructions still do >> NOT >> give details on the setup of Dotiac::DTL. If I installed that locally, >> maybe >> some documentation would emerge. And I will do that. There's LOADS of info >> on django -- but not this perl wrapper. >> >> >> Perhaps we should IRC tomorrow and we can identify the disconnect in this >>> documentation. >>> >>> uh--sorry, I'm unavailable tomorrow. I think YOUR documentation is fine >> really for what you're trying to get people to do -- with dealing with >> mdtext. But, this is kind of my point. >> >> *IF* we went straight html, and *IF* the templates were setup and fixed in >> place -- yes, we'd need a perl/django wonk for this aspect (along with >> some >> MUCH better documentation on this aspect) -- folks wouldn't have to do a >> local setup at all. They'd simply edit HTML and commit the way we've >> always >> done in the past. Much simpler in my mind. >> >> >> I took at look around at many the Apache web areas (svn) at: >>>> >>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/**asf/ <http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/> >>>> >>>> You will see, as I did, that the vast majority are not using markdown, >>>> >>> and this is NOT a requirement. >>> >>> It is not a requirement, it was a recommendation. (POI uses a very old >>> version of Forrest and no one has wanted to change...) >>> >>> Anyway, thoughts/comments on this proposal? >>>> >>> Let's see if others have something to say. (I've got some Fortran and SQL >>> to do today.) >>> >>> yes, good idea...have fun with your project >> >> >> Regards, >>> Dave >>> >>> -- >>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------** >>>> ------------ >>>> MzK >>>> >>>> "Those who love deeply never grow old; >>>> they may die of old age, but they die young." >>>> -- Sir Arthur Pinero >>>> >>> >>> >> > -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MzK "Those who love deeply never grow old; they may die of old age, but they die young." -- Sir Arthur Pinero
