Re: Requirements for updated site

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexey Borzov [mailto:borz_off(at)cs(dot)msu(dot)su]
> Sent: 15 January 2004 09:32
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Requirements for updated site
>
> Hi!
>
> Dave Page wrote:
> > Is it not easier to put everything in the DB? How would we
> handle the editting of po files on the server?
>
> We won't. People will edit them locally and send for the
> inclusion in CVS.
>
> > Bear in mind that the vast majority of the site (10K pages
> or so) is already in the database with embedded (and messy) HTML tags.
>
> I presume that 99.9% of these is documentation. And it won't
> be translated, at least not in *this* way.

Why not? The whole point is to have *one* system for the whole site and
not a mish-mash of different ways of building bits of the site.

> Well, currently the person wanting to do some cosmetic
> changes to the design will have to wade through a ton of PHP
> code. I don't think a bit of abstraction will *hurt* here.

As that has been the same 2 or 3 people for years, I don't see that that
is a major issue (and we are not going to have an influds. What is a
major issue is that there is layout specific code in lot's of different
files. To change the masthead for example, there might be 20 or more
individual updates to make.

> Right now I want to take up the following: port the current
> portal code to using the template engine. I will use
> HTML_Template_Sigma
> (http://pear.php.net/package/HTML_Template_Sigma) as this is
> the thing I'm most comfortable with and it has a simple
> enough template syntax.
>
> I'll create a template for the common HTML "frame" and
> templates for all database-driven (as opposed to static)
> pages. I'll also split system/page.php into several files to
> ease further maintenance.
>
> Is it OK?

I fail to see why on earth we need to go to such lengths. All this could
be achieved with a simple script - how can you possibly justify an
entire 'template engine'? (and seperation of PHP and HTML is not an
answer in my opinion).

> >>Besides, can you give your opinion on sime other usability-related
> >>layout changes I proposed?
> >
> > I haven't seen you post any.
>
> Suggestions sent to pgsql-advocacy:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-advocacy/2004-01/msg00161.php

Some valid points, but most of them are simply matters of opinion or
done that way for historical reasons. For example, changing the name
Gborg will cause major disruption to tens if not hundreds of mailing
lists. Taking your issue about the licence link - previously it was on a
more info page as you suggest, but we got fed up with so many queries
about the licence from ppl. It was moved to the front page and those
queries more or less stopped overnight.

Bear in mind that this version of the site was designed over many months
with lot's of mockups and demo sites. That was the design we all agreed
we liked the best. It has since been tweaked and revised on a number of
occasions for readability and accessibility reasons.

As I said before, we have a specific todo list here. First build the
framework, second update the design and third, restructure all
appropriate sites and content.

> Mock-up:
> http://oc.cs.msu.su/stuff/PostgreSQL.html

Sorry, but I think that just looks a mess. Quick straw poll of the
office here indicates most others think the same.

Much as you may not like the existing design, it is tidy, structured and
frames and focuses the user on the main content.

> > No, it doesn't (but should). That's mainly because it's
> lifted from the current code which is used almost entirely by
> Devrim, Robert & I - and we know it's limitations!
>
> Now consider the number of people who are going to work on
> the site after the
> translations framework is in place...

OK, I've ignored it up until now, but please read what I write before
you respond.

Regards, Dave.