my private
endeavours to publish tiny bits of information, once in a while.
I redefined a few keys in my word processor, and compose directly in
plain old hypertext, using hanging indent so that paragraph breaks and
the like are in the left margin and don't inhibit reading the source.
Good morning[...]
the bizarre subject line is there for a reason: I know nothing about
static web-site generators. What I want to know is – however – closely related to what I *do know* ...
I have been writing HTML and CSS for as long as I have an Internet connection, meaning for about 20 to 25 years. I know enough JavaScript
to do what I want and a lot of stuff that I *thought I want* but turned
out to be utterly useless.
Can you think of a reason for me to try a static web-site generator?
Can you think of a reason for me to try a static web-site generator?
Maybe you don't want to repeat yourself when creating a bunch of
documents which should all include a common header/footer etc. but still
want to have static files and not a CMS with scripts, database etc.
This is a valid argument or it can be one. Once there were server-side-includes for this kind of facilitation. We are asked to
not use them, where they are still supported and I did not experiment
a lot with SSI. Pardon my mentioning them anyway. ;)
One of my own solutions to repeating headers and footers had been inline-frames. This is another technique which must disappear if
those in charge have their will.
I clearly see the charm of an automating helper-application for this
kind of work. If this were though the only procedure to take into consideration, I would likely develop my own (xml-munging) scripts ...
I clearly see the charm of an automating helper-application for this
kind of work. If this were though the only procedure to take into
consideration, I would likely develop my own (xml-munging) scripts ...
Oy vey. Talk about overhead. ...and slow.
the bizarre subject line is there for a reason: I know nothing about
static web-site generators. What I want to know is – however – closely related to what I *do know* ...
Can you think of a reason for me to try a static web-site generator?
Can you think of a reason for me to try a static web-site generator?
You might want a static website generator for something like static
pages on GitHub et al.
E.g. (re)generate the pages locally and then upload the static pages to
the service that only supports static pages.
On 1/18/21 11:42 PM, Michael Uplawski wrote:
Can you think of a reason for me to try a static web-site generator?
You might want a static website generator for something like static
pages on GitHub et al.
E.g. (re)generate the pages locally and then upload the static pages to
the service that only supports static pages.
On 1/22/21 11:56 AM, Michael Uplawski wrote:
This is a valid argument or it can be one. Once there were server-side-includes for this kind of facilitation. We are asked to
not use them, where they are still supported and I did not experiment
a lot with SSI. Pardon my mentioning them anyway. ;)
I was going to mention Server Side Includes (SSI). I make extensive use
of them. And I do mean /extensive/.
It's possible to do a LOT of things with SSI, including beyond including
a header / footer / menu / etc. I've got multiple (sub)pages that set variables which are then used in other (sub)pages that print / output
the data in one format or another. E.g. using the same data for the
main page, summary in an overview, and data in an XML site map.
It's amazing what can be done with venerable SSIs.
Arno Welzel:
Can you think of a reason for me to try a static web-site generator?
Maybe you don't want to repeat yourself when creating a bunch of
documents which should all include a common header/footer etc. but still want to have static files and not a CMS with scripts, database etc.
This is a valid argument or it can be one. Once there were server-side-includes for this kind of facilitation. We are asked to not
use them, where they are still supported and I did not experiment a lot
with SSI. Pardon my mentioning them anyway. ;)
One of my own solutions to repeating headers and footers had been inline-frames. This is another technique which must disappear if those
in charge have their will.
Frames are bad.
Arno Welzel:
Can you think of a reason for me to try a static web-site generator?
Maybe you don't want to repeat yourself when creating a bunch of
documents which should all include a common header/footer etc. but still
want to have static files and not a CMS with scripts, database etc.
This is a valid argument or it can be one. Once there were server-side-includes for this kind of facilitation. We are asked to not
use them, where they are still supported and I did not experiment a lot
with SSI. Pardon my mentioning them anyway. ;)
One of my own solutions to repeating headers and footers had been inline-frames. This is another technique which must disappear if those
in charge have their will.
In article <slrns0m7vf.1fa.michael.uplawski@kurti.uplawski.eu>, Michael Uplawski <michael.uplawski@uplawski.eu> writes:[...]
One of my own solutions to repeating headers and footers had been
inline-frames. This is another technique which must disappear if those
in charge have their will.
Frames are bad.
Name one.
because I host my own pages and use SSI.
On 1/22/21 10:34 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Name one.
I thought that I did. "Git Hub Pages".
I've never used it myself, so I can't say for certain.
But I know that there have been many services that only support static
pages over the last 30 years.
I'm not familiar with them, beyond knowledge of their existence, because
I host my own pages and use SSI.
AISB, _GitHub_ pages support GitHub-flavoured Markdown.
Welcome to the 21st century!
<https://owasp.org/www-community/attacks/Server-Side_Includes_(SSI)_Injection#:~:text=The%20Server%2DSide%20Includes%20attack,use%20through%20user%20input%20fields.>
<https://www.whoishostingthis.com/resources/ssi/>
Good morning
I discovered again what made me fall foul of Arachnophilia and
might be my problem with downright website generators: Psychology.
I am initially overwhelmed with all the functionality and – in the
effort to benefit from it – the way that my actual code and the
editor window are losing interest.
When I diminish the weight of convenience functions, toolbars,
menu-commands – e.g. by assigning keyboard-shortcuts –, in the
end, all looks terribly like the vim-editor that I am anyway used to
right now.
I ventured that there must be something that appeals to die-hard
static web-site authors and justifies the existence of so many website generators.
Otherwise, these people could just as well edit their pages by
hand.
Automation is something a creative person wants to master her-/himself, normally, and the reasons for replacing your own work by that of a
software should be a valuable revelation to me.
If there is no such argument, and I am confirmed in the end that
nothing of this is worth an effort, what rests is a déja-vu: Learning
the conventions of a helper-program – or downright markdown-syntax,
like in current CMS – is preferred over learning basic HTML. This
may appear natural to some, it does not to me.
I am still open for suggestions. ;)
TY anyway
On 1/22/21 10:22 PM, Michael Uplawski wrote:
I discovered again what made me fall foul of Arachnophilia and
might be my problem with downright website generators: Psychology.
I am initially overwhelmed with all the functionality and – in the
effort to benefit from it – the way that my actual code and the
editor window are losing interest.
Ah. Ignore the things that you don't need. Don't try using things just because they are there.
On 1/23/21 8:48 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Welcome to the 21st century!
Welcome to the 20th century.
Yeah, just stick with what you know, and never try anything new.
Because that is how civilization came to be. NOT.
*facepalm*
Did you mean that you prefer to live in the past?
Yeah, just stick with what you know, and never try anything new.
Because that is how civilization came to be. NOT.
*facepalm*
On 1/24/21 12:24 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Yeah, just stick with what you know, and never try anything new.
Because that is how civilization came to be. NOT.
*facepalm*
I was being sarcastic in response to your comment.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
Yeah, just stick with what you know, and never try anything new.
This is highly off-topic. […]
[more junk]
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 440 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 23:43:03 |
| Calls: | 9,150 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 13,433 |
| Messages: | 6,043,104 |