[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: ?

From: sirgazil
Subject: Re: ?
Date: Wed, 06 May 2020 17:21:27 +0000
User-agent: Zoho Mail

 ---- On Wed, 06 May 2020 14:46:02 +0000 zimoun <address@hidden> wrote ----
 > On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 16:23, Ludovic Courtès <address@hidden> wrote:
 > > > Does it make sense to replace the interface of [1] by the interface by 
 > > > [2]?
 > >
 > > A goal for [1] was to have a JS-free interface.  It’s necessarily
 > > limiting (no search interface), but I think it’s good to have.
 > I understand.  Even if I am almost sure no one use it in practise. )-:


 > > It would also be nice to preserve the design and layout that sirgazil
 > > came up with.
 > Or use the nice layout with the other interface (search etc.) :-)
 > But I understand that the JS is the current issue.

Personally, I think there is no JavaScript issue, Simon. The problem seems to 
be that no one is volunteering to enhance the package-related pages to add the 
missing features. The only rule I know about JS is that the website should be 
usable without it (for users who disable JS and for browsers that don't 
interpret any JS). That doesn't mean that using JS in the website is forbidden.

The package pages design you are seeing right now is part of a proposal I did 
some years ago (see At that time there 
was a limitation to keep everything static (no databases, no server-side 
scripting) because Guix website was a static website hosted by Savannah (like 
the websites of other GNU projects). For this reason, parts of the proposal, 
like searching, were left unimplemented. I think I proposed to try using some 
JS-based searching at the time, but I never prototyped anything.

Guix has its own hosting resources now. If someone volunteers, I think it would 
be possible to get the functionality from ""; in the 
Guix website.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]