Subject: Re: Requirements for updated site

From: "Dave Page" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:28:37 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexey Borzov [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: 15 January 2004 09:32
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: [email-masked]
> 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.

---

From: Alexey Borzov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 14:21:35 +0300

Hi!

I will not bother being polite either...

> 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?

> 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.

> entire 'template engine'? (and seperation of PHP and HTML is not an

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.

> occasions for readability and accessibility reasons.

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

> appropriate sites and content.

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

> office here indicates most others think the same.

Fair enough.

> 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.

---

From: Peter Eisentraut <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 18:29:59 +0100

Dave Page wrote:
> 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, that's like saying we should edit all PostgreSQL source code in 
assembly, because there is some assembly in there and for reasons of 
consistency that should be the common denominator. ;-)

If, say, it were accomplished to extract gettext-style message catalogs 
from both XHTML and DocBook, then translators could use the same set of 
tools, and writers could use the same XML editors for everything.  Just 
the internal semantics are going to be different, but they will anyway, 
because you're writing two different things.  It would still be a 
pretty good "one system" to me.

I keep saying "gettext", because that is the direction that the 
documentation is most likely going to go in, because it's successfully 
practiced at KDE and all the tools are available.  Nothing is decided 
yet, but some translators have expressed strong desires to go that way.  
But I'm glad we're here to discuss it so we don't invent the wheel 
twice more.

---

From: "Marc G. Fournier" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 01:09:21 -0400 (AST)

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Alexey Borzov wrote:

> 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!

You may want to go back in the list archives and read the many months of
discussions on the current web site ... altho Dave did alot of the coding
on it, it was with *alot* of feedback from the community on what they
liked ... it was *not* one man's vision ...

If you have ideas and suggestions, *sell* them too us ... but being the
antagonist isn't going to win many votes ... the thing is, I think
everyone agrees we could do better ... and for the past I don't know how
many months, everyone has been putting in their 2 cents of how that can be
accomplished ... and now you've just added in your 2 cents too, which is
great.  But if you want to convince anyone that your way is better, you
are goin to have to sell it ...

----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: [email-masked]           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664