Ok. Isn't it a bit splitting of hairs to talk about static site generators and their templates?
Wouldn't a static site generator that can create a good, usable website with little input be desirable? I could pick and choose CSS templates, HTML templates and write some of my own, but that takes quite a bit of time. Yes, my fixation on XML HTML might be a bit purist or perfectionist, but isn't it strange that there isn't a DTD for XML HTML 5? Is it the ability to write websites using a text editor only what makes web companies continue the malformed input cycle, or is it legacy websites? -Morten Blogging at http://blogologue.com Tweeting at https://twitter.com/blogologue On Instagram https://instagram.com/morphexx tir. 13. aug. 2019, 14.32 skrev Jon Ribbens via Python-list < python-list@python.org>: > On 2019-08-13, Morten W. Petersen <morp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Ideally I'd want a static site generator that makes it easy and quick to > > create a website which is pretty, accessible, works across browsers and > > standards compliant and doesn't freeze the browser on a low-end phone. > > That isn't what they do. All those requirements are to do with the > HTML templates that you use for the site, regardless of whether it's > a static or dynamic site. > > > Do you know of a XML DTD for HTML5 by the way? > > There isn't one. However I would very strongly recommend NOT using > XHTML. Nobody uses XHTML and no browsers support it except inasmuch > as they parse it by pretending it's HTML. Just use the HTML > representation of HTML 5. > > I think the most commonly-used static site generator is probably > Jekyll. It's in Ruby but that's basically irrelevant unless you're > a Jekyll developer - as a user you just use the Liquid templating > system, which is more-or-less identical to Django's. > -- > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list > -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
