Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On not choosing WordPress for the W3C redesign project

w3c.studio24.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 208 posts

Re: On not choosing WordPress for the W3C redesign project

#11

Post by johnchristopher »

ggm wrote: post #8

Is wp still php? What if you want a cdn outcome which doesn't drive to an sql backend? I've yet to experience wp consciously without it making me wince. I know a lot of former print press is using it, so the for profit sector likes it. That does not axiomatically make it best of breed. Being php is also not axiomatically worst of breed. The questions are decoupled really. 1) is wp still php 2) is wp best of breed. 3)…

These are most of the time not the good questions.

Can WordPress be deployed by anybody ? Yes, there's a ton of PHP hosting providers and they all have a one-click install WordPress button.

Does WordPress enable authors and owners to update their website content and the design with a WYSIWYG interface ? Yes and yes (see divi, beaver, etc.).

Re: On not choosing WordPress for the W3C redesign project

#12

Post by digitalengineer »

stoolpigeon wrote: post #9
digitalengineer wrote: post #7

Does anyone know why Drupal wasn’t considered?

The article says due to front end complexity. It's in the last sentence of the section with that header.

Weird. I first somehow read a shorter version of the article in the HN iOS app.

Re: On not choosing WordPress for the W3C redesign project

#13

Post by systemvoltage »

> One final note. We are currently considering a Headless CMS option for front-end page delivery. This means using the CMS in a decoupled way to manage content but use a separate system to deliver front-end pages. Please note this solution would not be reliant on JavaScript (e.g. a single page app which is common with headless.

Excellent. SPAs have their place in things like Notion and Google Docs. I’m glad they’re not depending on Javascript.

Re: On not choosing WordPress for the W3C redesign project

#14

Post by ponker »

ognarb wrote: post #6

So while talking during the entire article about being firm supporter of open source software, they choose a proprietary CMS. I'm disappointed by the W3C.

The W3C’s core mission is web standards, not FOSS. They are right to prioritize standards #1 just like the FSF website must be FOSS.

Re: On not choosing WordPress for the W3C redesign project

#15

Post by cjfd »

The 'eat your own dog food' principle would dictate that the W3C writes their site in plain html + css. The fact that this is not even considered proves the these languages are so incredibly non ergonomic. I know.... it is an often reiterated point, but when it is the site of the W3C it really is very hard not to notice this....

Re: On not choosing WordPress for the W3C redesign project

#16

Post by userbinator »

Please note this solution would not be reliant on JavaScript

Please choose it then, because it would be a sad day for the Web indeed if the W3C's site turned into a horrible JS SPA like so many others unfortunately have. The W3C's collection of standards is an important and prominent example of the document-centric-web, and keeping them as static pages that can be viewed with anything down to a text browser is definitely important for accessibility.

Re: On not choosing WordPress for the W3C redesign project

#17

Post by vorpalhex »

Glad they realized the issues of Wordpress but a shame they went with proprietary nonsense with a faux license.

A php based platform has a lot of negatives for scalability. Using a cms to generate static content is much more simple, scalable and cheaper.

Keep it simple.

Re: On not choosing WordPress for the W3C redesign project

#18

Post by Meph504 »

cjfd wrote: post #15

The 'eat your own dog food' principle would dictate that the W3C writes their site in plain html + css. The fact that this is not even considered proves the these languages are so incredibly non ergonomic. I know.... it is an often reiterated point, but when it is the site of the W3C it really is very hard not to notice this....

I don't see how the w3c establishing a rule set would mean they would code it by hand, can you provide more details as to why the should, and not use a CMS that produces compliant code?

Re: On not choosing WordPress for the W3C redesign project

#19

Post by ehnto »

cjfd wrote: post #15

The 'eat your own dog food' principle would dictate that the W3C writes their site in plain html + css. The fact that this is not even considered proves the these languages are so incredibly non ergonomic. I know.... it is an often reiterated point, but when it is the site of the W3C it really is very hard not to notice this....

They're still using HTML and CSS, all websites do. It's the dynamic and generated nature of web applications that makes static HTML and CSS not useful on it's own. You could argue the right choice then is a static site generator, but the difference between static site generation and dynamic site generation is really just when you do the generating work.

Re: On not choosing WordPress for the W3C redesign project

#20

Post by slim »

systemvoltage wrote: post #13

> One final note. We are currently considering a Headless CMS option for front-end page delivery. This means using the CMS in a decoupled way to manage content but use a separate system to deliver front-end pages. Please note this solution would not be reliant on JavaScript (e.g. a single page app which is common with headless. Excellent. SPAs have their place in things like Notion and Google Docs. I’m glad they’re n…

it would be ridiculous if w3c relied on javascript for it's website. for instance the current website demonstrated a lot of advanced html/css when it was updated ~15 years ago
Post reply on HN