16 Dec
2011
16 Dec
'11
5:57 p.m.
2011/12/16 E. Liddell <ejlddll(a)googlemail.com>om>:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 17:55:47 +0100
L0ner sh4dou <sh4dou(a)gmail.com> wrote:
That would be nice.
2011/12/16 Calvin Morrison
<mutantturkey(a)gmail.com>om>:
I think Calvin was advocating the general concept, not the specific
implementation. I'm sure we can find an open-source, locally-hostable
comment system that requires only PHP, HTML4/XHTML1, and
CSS<=2 (and if we can't, I'm sure I'm not the only one here
capable of creating such a system if it turns out to be both useful
and necessary).
On 16 December 2011 11:27, E. Liddell <ejlddll(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
It uses disqus for the comments, for which I have mixed feelings. I'd
rather not relay on external services for parts of the website.
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 20:20:11 -0500
Calvin Morrison <mutantturkey(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 15 December 2011 19:45, L0ner sh4dou <sh4dou(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Not using databases is a big problem, since it practically constrains
> > you to use static pages.
> >
> Basically - why is is this so bad?
Depends on what we're trying to achieve. Dynamic pages ease certain
types of collaboration and user-added content, but static pages are not
intrinsically evil and put less of a load on the server.
Both can be good, If anything I'd do a bit of both.
Simple php/html + a commenting system.
here is a good example of very basic and yet has dynamic elements:
http://incise.org/htpicker.html