shindig-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Cassie <d...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Proposed basic Shindig website
Date Thu, 07 Feb 2008 01:47:14 GMT
Yes yes, let's never do anything more with the checked in html file! It can
be added to a little bit but the thought was that it would never be more
than just one html file. The current site will hopefully just force us to do
something better while giving a better placeholder than the last thing.

That said, I don't have much of an opinion about what we choose long term
(although wikis are awesome).

- Cassie


On Wed, Feb 6, 2008 at 2:12 AM, Dan Peterson <dpeterson@google.com> wrote:

> I think the single page proposal was fine to bootstrap, but I think we
> should split it out into separate pages to play nice with the rest of the
> web. This is plain html after all :)
>
> I imagine the refactoring would take less than 20 minutes.
>
> -Dan
>
> On Feb 6, 2008 2:10 AM, Bruno Bowden <bruno@google.com> wrote:
>
> > I'd tend to agree. If we wanted to preload the data, could you just put
> > the other pages inside an iframe?
> >
> >
> > On Feb 6, 2008 1:59 AM, Kevin Brown <etnu@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Feb 5, 2008 4:08 PM, Bruno Bowden <bruno@google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Fair point about search engine traffic Brian. The search engine
> > > crawler
> > > > will
> > > > still find the content but it would only land you on the "home" tab.
> > > At
> > > > that
> > > > point the other tabs would still only be a click away. The benefit
> of
> > > this
> > > > page is instant switching between the content.
> > >
> > >
> > > This is only really useful while the content is small. Once we have a
> > > large
> > > number of "pages" this will become impossible to maintain and slow to
> > > load.
> > > Static files aren't ever going to take much time to load anyway, even
> on
> > > slow connections.
> > >
> >
> >
>

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