On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 3:57 PM, YpN wrote:
>
> I wrote a shell script using mksh, which generates websites. You need to write
> your pages / posts in HTML or markdown (the project supports smu) and then
> the script will "create" your website. I know we have werc but I wanted to
> write my own to
Paul Onyschuk dixit:
>With mdocml [1] you get nice HTML output for free, because it
Actually, no output at all, since it’s not a full *roff processor,
and I (have to) use a compatibility leader (between AT&T nroff,
GNU groff with UCB macros, and GNU groff with GNU macros) which
also implements le
On Sat, 14 Dec 2013 01:17:02 + (UTC)
Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Though I do low-level *roff stuff too. I had to learn it because
> I had to fix the mdoc macro _implementation_ itself… not too hard,
> the classical documentation https://www.mirbsd.org/manUSD/21.troff
> and https://www.mirbsd.org
Chris Down dixit:
>If masking files with directories is considered "clean", then I don't
>want to live on this planet any more.
>Just don't do it.
Agreed. I don’t put *.htm files into subdirectories at all;
the other MirWebseite setup does it as it’s got some more
hierarchically structured conte
On 13/12/2013, Nick wrote:
> On a related note, for those who like him, Eben Moglen just did an
> excellent series of talks
It's not the FSF's doctrine that loses; it's GNU's shitty code.
> Browsing the web nowadays feels like having engineers
> and advertisers constantly shouting "fuck you" at
On 14 December 2013 00:16, Charlie Kester wrote:
> RSS is dead? Did I miss the obituary? What, if anything, has replaced
> it?
In all honesty twitter / facebook announcement links. If that doesn't
happen I expect to be able to sign up to some announce list, so that I
get notified when a blogger
> RSS is dead? Did I miss the obituary? What, if anything, has replaced
> it?
Facebook. Because totalitarianism never felt so cozy...
> I still use it to track new posts on the blogs and other pages I'm
> interested in. I guess I'm old-fashioned, huh? I still use the
> commandline too, and I s
On Thu 12 Dec 2013 at 20:00:46 PST Kai Hendry wrote:
RSS is dead. why bother?
RSS is dead? Did I miss the obituary? What, if anything, has replaced
it?
I still use it to track new posts on the blogs and other pages I'm
interested in. I guess I'm old-fashioned, huh? I still use the
commandl
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 02:12:48PM +0100, Paul Onyschuk wrote:
> Plain text is even more human friendly. Email composition is based on
> conventions, not syntax - quotes, references etc. For many thing it
> is good enough.
For conversations yes. However those 'mini "markup"' languages allow for
On 13/12/2013, Paul Onyschuk wrote:
> [Markdown] is still non-strict,
I missed this. Where is evaluation order specified?
> Sed, awk, grep and other standard tools work great with sane roff
> document: you can stick to the oneliners (I don't think that this can
> be said about any other document
On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 13:57:56 +0200
Edgaras wrote:
> I get why some people might not like markdown, or similar. Fix me if
> I'm wrong, but I think that Markdown and similar are also made to be
> human readable without any parser. And I'd dare to say that nether
> html not TeX or *roff are as human
I get why some people might not like markdown, or similar. Fix me if I'm wrong,
but I think that Markdown and similar are also made to be human readable
without any parser. And I'd dare to say that nether html not TeX or *roff are
as human readable as Margdown and similar. Though of course previous
On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 01:53:09 +
Nick wrote:
>
> Quoth Thorsten Glaser:
> > I absolutely d̲e̲t̲e̲s̲t̲ Markdown.
>
> Really? Why? I quite like it (at least smu's subset). Works for the
> simple usecases I need it, and keeps the angle brackets of doom away
> from me.
>
Markdown solves only
Just for completeness: I’ve written MirWebseite as a non-generic
thing to generate static XHTML websites, too, and even got a second
only slightly related installation (which, ofc, by now deviates quite
a bit from the installation on the MirBSD/mksh website). Though, it
needs the “CMS” user to pro
> > Did you really just say that every file should just be abstracted as a
> > directory... how much of that web 2.0 Kool-Aid did you drink?
>
> Is there an easier way to encourage clean URLs?
>
> Without resorting to crazy rewrites?
'Options +Multiviews' in .htaccess works a charm. Making a direc
On 2013-12-13 14:31:51 +0800, Patrick wrote:
> Maybe give him the benefit of the doubt that he meant something like
> 'maintains hierarchical taxonomy'.
/2013/12/01/foo.html or /2013/12/01/foo/ -- I certainly don't care, but
specifically trying to get the latter over the former is just insanity.
On 2013-12-13 14:25, Chris Down wrote:
> > Is there an easier way to encourage clean URLs?
> If masking files with directories is considered "clean", then I don't
> want to live on this planet any more.
Maybe give him the benefit of the doubt that he meant something like
'maintains hierarchical ta
On 2013-12-13 14:23:25 +0800, Kai Hendry wrote:
> On 13 December 2013 14:20, Chris Down wrote:
> > Did you really just say that every file should just be abstracted as a
> > directory... how much of that web 2.0 Kool-Aid did you drink?
>
> Is there an easier way to encourage clean URLs?
If maski
On 13 December 2013 14:20, Chris Down wrote:
> Did you really just say that every file should just be abstracted as a
> directory... how much of that web 2.0 Kool-Aid did you drink?
Is there an easier way to encourage clean URLs?
Without resorting to crazy rewrites?
On 2013-12-13 14:09:25 +0800, Kai Hendry wrote:
> you want foo.html to be exposed by your httpd as /foo/ ?
No.
> Only generate one index.html per directory. Simples.
Did you really just say that every file should just be abstracted as a
directory... how much of that web 2.0 Kool-Aid did you drin
On 13 December 2013 14:01, Chris Down wrote:
>> You generate .html URLs. bit 90s and fugly. urls should be clean
>> /2013/blogpost/
> Huh? That's the job of the web server.
how?
you want foo.html to be exposed by your httpd as /foo/ ?
Only generate one index.html per directory. Simples.
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 11:00 PM, Kai Hendry wrote:
> RSS is dead. why bother?
Why bother? The troves of people who cried at Google Reader shutting
down would say otherwise. RSS is "dying" because companies like
Google, Facebook, Twitter want to *own* the flow of information, and
they can't do t
Oh Kai :-)
On 2013-12-13 12:00:46 +0800, Kai Hendry wrote:
> This sucks
>
> Why mksh? Can't you use POSIX shell?
Enjoy your lack of useful functionality for no reason. At least mksh is
reasonable (disclaimer: I have not looked at the code).
> config files suck https://twitter.com/rob_pike/statu
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Kai Hendry wrote:
> You generate .html URLs. bit 90s and fugly. urls should be clean
> /2013/blogpost/
Not the job of the static website generator.
This sucks
Why mksh? Can't you use POSIX shell?
.wshtml is used in your README. Actually only TXT works by default.
smu is on my path, why interp?
config files suck https://twitter.com/rob_pike/status/360557625756229632
setting up prefix in the Makefile sucks
RSS is dead. why bother?
You gen
Quoth Thorsten Glaser:
> I absolutely d̲e̲t̲e̲s̲t̲ Markdown.
Really? Why? I quite like it (at least smu's subset). Works for the
simple usecases I need it, and keeps the angle brackets of doom away
from me.
YpN dixit:
>I wrote a shell script using mksh, which generates websites. You need to write
Just for completeness: I’ve written MirWebseite as a non-generic
thing to generate static XHTML websites, too, and even got a second
only slightly related installation (which, ofc, by now deviates quite
a b
On 12/12/2013, Troels Henriksen wrote:
> No, that was year 100. 2014 is the year of MMXIV.
Anyhow, this is actually the year 44.
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Ryan O’Hara wrote:
> Jekyll seems pretty decent to me. What is there to object to? Markdown and
> Ruby?
>
> The rest of the things you mention don’t have much to do with offline
> website generation. They’re just languages that compile to other
> languages. Jade,
So you're saying that this is better than Coffeescript? That
comparison is completely unintelligible.If you're saying that we
should step back and return to a simpler approach to web
design/development - I completely agree, but how does a static site
generator compare to Coffeescript/LESS/Jade at a
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Nicholas Hall wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Ryan O’Hara wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Nicholas Hall wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 8:57 AM, YpN wrote:
I wrote a shell script using mksh, which generates websites.
>>>
>>> This lo
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Ryan O’Hara wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Nicholas Hall wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 8:57 AM, YpN wrote:
>>> I wrote a shell script using mksh, which generates websites.
>>
>> This looks pretty cool. I'm sick of all the shitty hip offline
>> we
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Nicholas Hall wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 8:57 AM, YpN wrote:
>> I wrote a shell script using mksh, which generates websites.
>
> This looks pretty cool. I'm sick of all the shitty hip offline
> website generators, and the direction web development is headed
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 8:57 AM, YpN wrote:
> I wrote a shell script using mksh, which generates websites.
This looks pretty cool. I'm sick of all the shitty hip offline
website generators, and the direction web development is headed in
general -- layer upon layer upon layer. Seriously, these g
sin writes:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 05:11:06PM +0100, YpN wrote:
>> > C is generally more and efficient, I suppose.
>> >
>> > On 12/12/2013 16:04, sin wrote:
>> > > On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 03:42:52PM +, Neo Romantique wrote:
>> > >> Why Shell, and not C?
>> > >> Otherwise tool looks intere
On 12/12/2013 16:22, sin wrote:
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 04:20:32PM +, Neo Romantique wrote:
I've meant to write "Generally more readable and efficient", but
then after having a second thought I've deleted the readable part,
but had some leftover. :)
Don't top post.
Readable code depends m
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 04:20:32PM +, Neo Romantique wrote:
> I've meant to write "Generally more readable and efficient", but
> then after having a second thought I've deleted the readable part,
> but had some leftover. :)
Don't top post.
Readable code depends mostly on the programmer.
Have
I've meant to write "Generally more readable and efficient", but then
after having a second thought I've deleted the readable part, but had
some leftover. :)
On 12/12/2013 16:18, sin wrote:
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 11:13:56AM -0500, Strake wrote:
On 12/12/2013, Neo Romantique wrote:
C is gene
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 11:13:56AM -0500, Strake wrote:
> On 12/12/2013, Neo Romantique wrote:
> > C is generally more and efficient, I suppose.
>
> I assume you mean "more efficient".
I think he meant "generally more and efficient" lol
On 12/12/2013, Neo Romantique wrote:
> C is generally more and efficient, I suppose.
I assume you mean "more efficient".
It may be more for the machine but it's less for the programmer.
We build machines to do tedious work so we needn't.
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 05:11:06PM +0100, YpN wrote:
> > C is generally more and efficient, I suppose.
> >
> > On 12/12/2013 16:04, sin wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 03:42:52PM +, Neo Romantique wrote:
> > >> Why Shell, and not C?
> > >> Otherwise tool looks interesting.
> > > I don't s
> C is generally more and efficient, I suppose.
>
> On 12/12/2013 16:04, sin wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 03:42:52PM +, Neo Romantique wrote:
> >> Why Shell, and not C?
> >> Otherwise tool looks interesting.
> > I don't see why this has to be done in C.
> >
>
> --
> Regards,
> neo~
> h
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 04:05:22PM +, Neo Romantique wrote:
> C is generally more and efficient, I suppose.
Nonsense. You are just generating text.
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 05:51:44PM +0200, Dimitris Zervas wrote:
> That's EXACTLY what I want to do for my blog! I've started the project
> but right now it's a piece of crap.
> However I use C. I don't even use any markdown library, I am making my
> own (I'm not yet sure if that's right or wrong..
C is generally more and efficient, I suppose.
On 12/12/2013 16:04, sin wrote:
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 03:42:52PM +, Neo Romantique wrote:
Why Shell, and not C?
Otherwise tool looks interesting.
I don't see why this has to be done in C.
--
Regards,
neo~
http://www.inventati.org/neoromanc
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 03:42:52PM +, Neo Romantique wrote:
> Why Shell, and not C?
> Otherwise tool looks interesting.
I don't see why this has to be done in C.
That's EXACTLY what I want to do for my blog! I've started the project
but right now it's a piece of crap.
However I use C. I don't even use any markdown library, I am making my
own (I'm not yet sure if that's right or wrong...).
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Neo Romantique
wrote:
> Why Shell,
I think he was aiming for something like werc.
Good job!
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Neo Romantique
wrote:
> Why Shell, and not C?
> Otherwise tool looks interesting.
>
>
> On 12/12/2013 14:57, YpN wrote:
>>
>> Hey dudes,
>>
>> I wrote a shell script using mksh, which generates websites. Y
Why Shell, and not C?
Otherwise tool looks interesting.
On 12/12/2013 14:57, YpN wrote:
Hey dudes,
I wrote a shell script using mksh, which generates websites. You need to write
your pages / posts in HTML or markdown (the project supports smu) and then
the script will "create" your website. I k
Hey dudes,
I wrote a shell script using mksh, which generates websites. You need to write
your pages / posts in HTML or markdown (the project supports smu) and then
the script will "create" your website. I know we have werc but I wanted to
write my own tools.
Actually it's a bit hard to describe
50 matches
Mail list logo
