Re: [BUG] worg-setup.org is outdated

[Tim Cross]

Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com> writes:

> Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Just a couple of questions regarding all of this (really just
>> background and to anyone who may have the knowledge, not just Bastien)
>>
>> Is there any reason we don't use a CSS framework, like bulma or
>> tailwind to manage the CSS? I know that using JS can be an issue, but
>> what about a CSS only framework with an MIT license? This would make it
>> *much* easier to have a site which is both responsive and looks good on
>> different sized displays, is accessibility compliant, works well across
>> different browsers and is easier to maintain while still avoiding
>> inclusion of JS (Ironically, I know JS a lot better than CSS!). 
>
> I suspect that the real reason is lack of experience with CSS and JS.
> Also, we don't really want a high entry barrier for contributors (but
> then, again, we haven't had many contributors to WORG html side over the
> years anyway, AFAIK).

I actually think a basic framework, such as Bulma or Tailwind, would
lower the barrier. CSS is possibly the most challenging part of doing
decent web pages - especially if you want responsive pages which work
well on large and small screens and with respect to accessibility. 

>
> Note that JS is not strictly disallowed (e.g. see
> https://orgmode.org/worg/code/org-info-js/). It's just that we have an
> FSF requirement to have a website viewable from non-JS browsers.
> However, even this requirement may not be enforced given sufficient
> justification. Only the main orgmode.org website must follow FSF
> guidelines strictly (https://git.sr.ht/~bzg/orgweb). WORG
> (https://git.sr.ht/~bzg/worg) is more lax. It may be a good idea to use
> something GPL-compatible though.
>

I don't plan to use JS. THis site doesn't need JS support. More
importantly, while older CSS frameworks, such as bootstrap, relied on JS
as part of the framework, due to advances in CSS, more modern CSS
frameworks like Bulma and Tailwind are able to achieve similar
functionality just using CSS. 

These frameworks are easy to learn - far easier than learning CSS.
Anyone who knows CSS will have no problem using them and anyone who
doesn't will find using the framework much easier than having to learn
'raw' CSS, which has some pretty narly dark corners which take
considerable effort to master. 

>> Finally, Bastien and others who may have worked on worg previously, if
>> yuou have any notes or points which you think it would help for me to
>> know, please feel free to send them through directly. While I've done a
>> bit of HTML and CSS in the past, I've only ever used org mode for very
>> simple/minor HTML output and usually for my own personal consumption.
>> I've never taken advantage of the publishing side of org. 
>
> AFAIK, worg is very simple. We just rely on ox-html to produce output
> and then publish a static website. That's it.
>

The thing about a static web site is that it needs good navigation to
make it useable and easy to explore (which I think is critical with
something like worg). To achieve that, there needs to be some
'knowledge' about the pages and their relationship to each other - it
isn't quite as simple as just having a lot of static pages on a server. 

First step is to get a working local copy so that I have something to
work with. AFter that and a bit of exploring, I should have a better
understanding and idea how to go forward.