Re: Requirements for updated site

Hi!

I will not bother being polite either...

Dave Page wrote:
>>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.

Because it is STUPID. Because the docs are written in DocBook and HTML is built
from this. Because when you translate "just" HTML, you won't be able to convert
"translated" docs to other formats like PS or PDF. Because doc translation is
far beyond the scope of website project.

Enough reasons?

>>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.

I was *not* talking about current "www" dir where "layout specific code in lot's
of different files", its state is best described by a Russian saying "Gorbatogo
mogila ispravit", or literally "The grave will cure the hunchback".

In the current "portal" dir all the layout is finally in *one* place, but it is
not even PHP embedded in HTML, it is HTML embedded in PHP. It is impossible to
edit this spaghetti.

> 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).

Separation of PHP and HTML (or rather of domain and presentation logic: you are
keeping SQL *and* HTML in one file, tangled in rather interesting ways!) is not
an answer in one case: when you are the only one developing something and when
you don't want anynone's dirty hands touch your precious-s-s code.

>>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.

Wow. That's why main menu is in 'x-small'? For *readability* and *accessibility*
reasons? Wow.

> 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.

Well, right above you objected to building the framework and making is easier to
update design. Where's truth?

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

Fair enough.

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

Well, as you are probably the designer of the thing, I only have to agree. This
is *absolutely* fabulous design, the best I've ever seen. I sincerely hope that
MySQL AB will hire you to redesign their site as well, so that the projects will
be able to compete on even grounds!

I won't mention the fact that most of the questions about postgresql I see go
like this: "where do I get the windows port?", "where do I get a specific
interface?", "does postgresql have replication?". But that's me, I read wrong
lists and forums, such questions are not asked on pgsql-www, because it is
conveniently closed.