incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kay Schenk <>
Subject Re: [www] html instead of markdown (mdtext)?
Date Fri, 12 Aug 2011 15:30:07 GMT
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Terry Ellison <>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.


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<>
>>  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:
>>>>**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


"Those who love deeply never grow old;
 they may die of old age, but they die young."
                                -- Sir Arthur Pinero

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message