New website (inspired by the "Website layout" thread)

[Hiten Pandya]

Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai wrote:

	[not aimed directly to Jeroen ... ]

-On [20040206 07:52], Amar Takhar (verm at xxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:

Why SGML?

A few reasons:
* The SGML HTML DTD will do offline-HTML syntax checking.
* Static website (improves speed).
* Site layout in CVS is exactly the same as WWW.
* DSSSL backend provides the ability to add advanced features.


XML+XSLT+XHTML would be a better avenue to follow.
	I second Jeroen on this issue.  I would strongly assert
	that we move toward an XML+XSLT+XHTML model to keep a
	good grip on the coming future of the WWW.
General HTML:
* The website is now backwards compatible to first generation browsers, while 
some people see this as unimportant, I'd like to say a few things on this 
subject:
	- A lot of people still use first generation browsers


Nobody who matters.  General available statistics on the Internet show
that even version 4 browsers and lower are dropping below the 1%
ballmark _combined_.  Not to mention that v4 and down have security
holes too numerous to mention.
	Yes, we should not be worrying about this too much.

	- This is a technical site, not http://www.disney.com
* The site looks far better in text-only browsers. (eg, w3m
www.dragonflybsd.org vs w3m dfly.ten15.org)
	The original layout that I made, and worked on with Justin
	works fine in text-only browsers 'links' and 'lynx'.
* Static pages are cool.
	Well, as Jeroen said, they have their upsides and downsides,
	but one thing for sure that I like about a static page model
	is that there are far more people who would mirror the site
	just like FreeBSD's WWW site model.
	My closing remarks, are that, we should adopt the FreeBSD WWW
	framework and hack away at it to make it fully XML+XSLT+XHTML
	instead of muffling around with anything else -- it will be
	quick, painless, and less stressin' ;-)
		-- Hiten (hmp at xxxxxxxxxxxxx)