Final Thoughts: WWW Framework

Hiten Pandya hmp at
Tue Feb 10 04:01:33 PST 2004

Matthew Dillon wrote:

:Hiten Pandya <hmp at xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
:news:402424a4$0$181$415eb37d at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx: 
:> I have discussed my issues with Amar , and have reached the verdict; 
:> that since he has already done preliminary work for the DFBSD WWW,
:> I am willing to commit his work in the next 3 days.  If there is any
:> objections than send them as a followup to this thread.
:I certainly have no objections.  If you get it in this weekend, in fact,
:it'd be great - I may have free time to look at it and learn. 

    Well, I've looked at it... I don't understand what it buys us.  The
    CGI wrapper I have now can easily do everything that the SGML does
    and more, and the html templates are easier to write with the wrapper
    then with SGML.
    So, what does it buy us?
	For the long run, it is good to use standardized technologies
	than to reinvent the wheel with our own templating systems. It
	also makes it easier for documentation and www people to work
	with it, and integrate the documentation and www properly.
	I would seriously suggest toward using the framework, instead
	of tablecg and friends.  Also, you will loose the CGI overhead
	because the pages will be static.  This can make a difference
	once DragonFly is released.  Documentation can be generated in
	the form of Handbooks and Tutorials using DocBook and stuff,
	which tightly integrates with an SGML-based WWW framework.
	There are various other benefits too in the long run.

	Thanks and regards,

		-- Hiten

More information about the Submit mailing list