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

41–50 of 208 posts

Re: On not choosing WordPress for the W3C redesign project

#41

Post by stoolpigeon »

gexla wrote: post #29
stoolpigeon wrote: post #4

Never mind - their contributing.md document makes clear it isn't a FOSS project. --------------- I wasn't familiar with Craft. Looking at it they seem to have their own license and it seems pretty restrictive. Can anyone point to any existing discussions about the implications of the license and if it is truly open source? I understand FOSS projects that have some kind of payment option, but I don't understand how th…

> Never mind - their contributing.md document makes clear it isn't a FOSS project. Where did you end up finding this information? How did you not see the "pricing" link in the navigation at their website? Or did you not look at their website? If you're having to pay for the software, then you probably don't need to dig much further to see that it's not FOSS. You seem to be making this more complicated than it actuall…

I went to the repo and read the license. The article made me think it was sold but open. Lots of FOSS software has purchase options. That alone doesn't indicate if something is foss or not. The license confused me, as I stated but they have another file "Contributing.md" that explicitly states it is not a FOSS license. Now I just wonder why anyone would work for them for free.

The post linked here has the section "The question of open source" and it states "While their source code is open, they do have commercial licenses and cost money (though a modest sum)." That is where they link to the github repo. I'd say all that wording also muddies the waters. I guess it's "open" in the sense that you can read it. But I don't consider that to be open. I guess they are drawing a distinction between FOSS and "open". I can't argue that but I still think the way it's written is confusing. (or maybe I'm just not current on how these terms are being more commonly used.)

Re: On not choosing WordPress for the W3C redesign project

#42

Post by gexla »

ggm wrote: post #39
gexla wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can you comment so negatively on WP when you know so little about it?

Because I've had to install it, maintain it, and produce contents for it, and never enjoyed it.

And you had to ask if it's still written in PHP?

Re: On not choosing WordPress for the W3C redesign project

#43

Post by ComodoHacker »

Huge credit to Craft team! A proprietaty product being chosen for so heavily open-source leaning project is a big win.

I'm bad at analogies, but it's like a minority person took top position in a big company with strong discrimination culture in the XX century.

Re: On not choosing WordPress for the W3C redesign project

#44

Post by m_mueller »

vorpalhex wrote: post #17

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.

WP is php, and it tends to take a ton of plugins of various quality, vendors and support to get it to where you want it. Last I looked at it, it didn’t even support multi-language out of the box.

Re: On not choosing WordPress for the W3C redesign project

#45

Post by bad_user »

dgellow wrote: post #26
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.

I have to say that I’m not sure why we would care about the license of their CMS. Their work is on standardization, whatever tool works well for them in their context is a good choice. What matters is their output, that standard documents are available publicly and are accessible by the majority.

The long term support of that CMS also matters. Exported HTML/CSS/JS files look more and more like binary blobs.

If you can't edit those pages in 10 years from now, without yet another expensive migration, then in retrospect it will rightfully seem like a poor decision.

Re: On not choosing WordPress for the W3C redesign project

#46

Post by mattkevan »

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #23

> The use of React complicates front-end build. We have very talented front-end developers, however, they are not React experts - nor should they need to be. > I believe front-end should be built as standards-compliant HTML/CSS with JavaScript used to enrich functionality where necessary and appropriate. This is what worries me about React (and with other front end frameworks in general). I'm writing this as someone…

Yes, basically.

Modern frameworks like React are powerful, but complicated enough to put them way out of reach of anyone not a developer.

The high and low-ends of web frameworks seems to be splitting further apart - complicated but powerful, or simple but restricted like Squarespace.

There’s a lot of talk here and other places about how the modern web is boring and it’s become a monoculture, but there’s not a lot of talk about how it’s become so much harder for a non-coder, or at least a committed amateur to make powerful websites themselves.

Re: On not choosing WordPress for the W3C redesign project

#47

Post by LordAtlas »

darekkay wrote: post #3

Not choosing and inaccessible platform was the right thing to do. Hopefully this will make Automattic reconsider their priorities regarding web accessibility. Related write-up: https://adrianroselli.com/2020/09/gutenberg-accessibility-co...

I am an adult with no accessibility challenges and I still find Gutenberg a piece of crap whose interface seems designed to make you pull your hair out.

All my clients who just want to write posts ask me to turn the damn thing off. Somebody once yelled, "WTF is this stupid thing making me add blocks for each subheading and paragraph? That is not how writing works!"

Re: On not choosing WordPress for the W3C redesign project

#48

Post by sradman »

TL;DR: The W3C Redesign Project has selected Craft CMS over Wordpress.

From the CMS strategy and requirements document [1]:

> At a minimum, it’s expected W3C will have 10-30 people editing content on a new CMS, though this may be more.

Why is the CMS used by the internal marketing team even under consideration for a web site redesign? This has the feel of busy work to me.

[1] https://w3c.studio24.net/docs/cms-strategy-and-requirements/

Re: On not choosing WordPress for the W3C redesign project

#49

Post by prox »

inglor_cz wrote: post #38
prox wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use Wordpress extensively and I find the whole Gutenberg switch to be absolutely atrocious. From the design to the technical implementation. And it is also received as such. The classic editor has been downloaded millions of times. What worries me most is that the developers haven’t responded one bit to these issues (if I read the relevant issues) and it solves no problems. It feels a lot like the technology du jou…

I have a self-hosted blog with Wordpress and the change from classic editor to Gutenberg was like re-educating yourself to writing with your weak hand. Yuck. In the meantime, I got used to it, because I did not want to fight the development direction that was seemingly set in stone. And, to be just, Gutenberg got better. Nowadays you can pull most things off in it without thinking twice. But once you start horsing ar…

Before Wordpress my go to CMS was Drupal, but it suffered from the same problems. It took 3 years to even port the most standard and most used plugins to the new version.

I think its a bad sign if there is such a massive opposition to the direction and it is disregarded completely.

And like you said, once you start using atypical situations, it becomes a unnecessary complicated affair. Luckily you can dismiss Gutenberg, thats the only upside.

Re: On not choosing WordPress for the W3C redesign project

#50

Post by LordAtlas »

prox wrote: post #27
helsinkiandrew wrote: post #23

> The use of React complicates front-end build. We have very talented front-end developers, however, they are not React experts - nor should they need to be. > I believe front-end should be built as standards-compliant HTML/CSS with JavaScript used to enrich functionality where necessary and appropriate. This is what worries me about React (and with other front end frameworks in general). I'm writing this as someone…

I use Wordpress extensively and I find the whole Gutenberg switch to be absolutely atrocious. From the design to the technical implementation. And it is also received as such. The classic editor has been downloaded millions of times. What worries me most is that the developers haven’t responded one bit to these issues (if I read the relevant issues) and it solves no problems. It feels a lot like the technology du jou…

Because Matt Mullenweg's ego trumps all design considerations.
Post reply on HN