[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: maybe we could use as the blog's address?

From: Janek Warchoł
Subject: Re: maybe we could use as the blog's address?
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 09:00:42 +0200

2013/6/7 Urs Liska <address@hidden>:
> Am 07.06.2013 08:22, schrieb Janek Warchoł:
>> Hi,
>> 2013/6/6 Urs Liska <address@hidden>:
>>> Am 06.06.2013 19:00, schrieb Urs Liska:
>>>> I can try that with an arbitrary iframe page on my server.
>>> You can have a look at
>>> It works partially:
>>> - One can see everything and navigate the blog.
>>> - One can post comments
>>> - What does not work (for admins) is to edit comments or posts or enter
>>> the
>>> admin area at all
>>> - The address bar always shows the above address.
>>> (- a minor issue is that I don't know how to define the iframe yet. I had
>>> to
>>> manually set a height in pixels, which obviously isn't good.)
>> Thanks for testing this, Urs.
>> I think that's not good enough for our purposes (unless it is possible
>> to make the address bar behave as if the iframe was "the real thing").
>>   People will notice that something's wrong and the blog will look
>> unprofessional.
> Maybe one could embed the iframe as a noticeable window. I.e. make a header
> bar that says: "Here you can look at our blog, but you can also go to ...
> (navigation will easily bring you back to".
> But I have yet another idea that could be elegant if the technical
> requirements are met.
> If the server hosting is capable of running WordPress, i.e. has
> - PHP >= 5.2.4
> - MySQL >= 5.0
> available, we could:
> - Create a /blog directory at the top level of the website
> - Ensure that this directory isn't touched when updating the website content
> - Install WordPress there
>   This is a one-time action of a few minutes, and
>   the maintainer of the blog doesn't need any admin access to the server
> later
> This way the blog would be technically integrated into (i.e.
> wrt search engines)
> but could be maintained independently.

Maybe i don't understand something, but haven't we already rejected
this solution because it means having dynamic content which can lead
to problems (and we want to be perfectly safe)?

>From an email that Graham sent me privately:

2013/6/5 Graham Percival <address@hidden>:
> Running a server with dynamic content is not trivial.  Just look
> at how often went down over the years, or had spam
> problems, etc.  I *am* defending from that type of
> problem.  If lilypond caused a problem, then the company would be
> entirely justified in not allowing us to host stuff there, which
> would then require that we found an alternate host.  If we started
> paying for commercial hosting, we'd likely be looking at hundreds
> of euros per year (including hosting the binaries).  That would
> then require some sort of non-profit organization, and setting up
> such a thing would suck up even more admin time.


reply via email to

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