Re: push web branch code?

[Bob Carpenter]

Now that Daniel got the code, I realized that Michael M
set up a Ruby-based content management and web page
server system.

I have a VERY STRONG preference for making the web
site plain old static HTML.

I'm happy to do the CSS styling to make it look
like what you (Michael M) created.

My thinking is that

1. I don't want to have to worry about learning,
maintaining, porting, etc., a Ruby application, and

2. I like to be able to view the web pages on my local
machine the way they will look on the web. This carries
over to people who download Stan.

I also want to be able to keep the content under
version control, but we could probably do that with
the Ruby app.

I know there are advantages to a dynamic server, including

- maintaining sidebars and other nav cross-site
(this is a pain with static pages, especially if nav
changes all the time or the site gets big)

- code highlighting

- being able to write entries w/o understanding HTML

It also looks like the default setting for the thing you
sent is blog-like. We want to just dish up static content.
We always want "what is Stan" at the top, followed by
"download latest", etc.

If we add a news page, that should be managed like a blog.

- Bob



On 8/24/12 3:29 PM, Michael Malecki wrote:
> slightly annoyingly it wants an updated ruby, and for proper stan highlighting whoever generates should install JA's
> stan pygments code. If those are met though 'rake generate' in stanweb will process all of source/ into public/ . I'll
> work on simplifying the landing page.
>
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Daniel Lee <bea...@alum.mit.edu <mailto:bea...@alum.mit.edu>> wrote:
>
> Yeah, my fault. I never switched to the remote branch.
>
> I'll take a look at it.
>
>
> Daniel
>
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Michael Malecki <mal...@gmail.com <mailto:mal...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > hmm
> > http://code.google.com/p/stan/source/browse/?name=web#git%2Fweb
> > I see it there. I can pull, checkout web. git manages to confuse me though,
> > and I use its python cousin mercurial all day every day :/
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Bob Carpenter <ca...@alias-i.com <mailto:ca...@alias-i.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Daniel just tried looking at your source and
> >> couldn't find it on the server -- the branch looked
> >> like the main branch.
> >>
> >> Could you push the branch with your web design
> >> up to the server? Or just send me and Daniel a tarball?
> >>
> >> Assuming Daniel and I can understand the way it's put
> >> together and how to tweak it, we'll move the content I have up
> >> now over to your design. I think the richer design will
> >> be an advantage in the long run as the site grows.
> >>
> >> Would it be easy to create a front index page that
> >> doesn't have all the nav? If not, we can style a separate
> >> one if Andrew remains staunchly against a home page
> >> bristling with buttons and links.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> - Bob
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>

[Michael Malecki]

I value not writing html (or css), not maintaining nav, and aesthetics (especially highlighting) enough to suffer some annoyance stemming from ruby-ness.

The point about (completely) offline viewing makes sense, but an increasingly irrelevant one as web pages have good reason to expect to be served not opened. But, do what you want. 

--

[Ben Goodrich]

I suck at websites, but I'm inclined to say "whatever looks good". For mc-stan.org, I can't imagine that it would be so difficult to maintain (once it is up and running) or that many people would care if it doesn't look the same offline. If they are at mc-stan.org, it is probably to download Stan.

[Bob Carpenter]

Even more important than the form and how it's served,
I'd love to get feedback on the content that's up
now. So far Andrew's the only one who has responded
on that front.

More below on how we style and serve the pages.

On 8/24/12 5:01 PM, Michael Malecki wrote:
> I value not writing html (or css), not maintaining nav, and aesthetics (especially highlighting) enough to suffer some
> annoyance stemming from ruby-ness.

It's definitely a tradeoff. I just prefer the opposite.
It reminds me of discussions of Word vs. LaTeX
or Linux vs. Windows. I don't think there's one-size-fits-all
answer. Nor is there for our simple web site needs.

Serving more complex and more dynamic content
definitely requires both a content management system
and a content server. Typically it also requires
writing custom HTML, CSS and Javascript for richer
AJAX clients.

> The point about (completely) offline viewing makes sense, but an increasingly irrelevant one as web pages have good
> reason to expect to be served not opened.

Ben sent a comment agreeing with you on that
front.

> But, do what you want.

I was hoping to get more feedback!

My main concern is committing to maintaining
server software for HTML.

I'm a terrible sys-admin and it drives me insane doing
it.

The web provider, pair.com, lets us run code on our virtual
server.

Does someone want to volunteer to:

1. set up whatever server code's necessary on pair.com and

2. maintain it going forward?

I'm also happy to help

3. modify the content so that it matches what's currently
on mc-stan.org.

If someone else wants to do this, especially (2), I'm
happy to give it a try.

For 3, I'm particularly worried about being able to have
a simplified home page w/o nav bars, etc.

- Bob