Sent from my iPad
> On 19 Apr 2018, at 17:10, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 19 April 2018 at 13:27, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I have done some further investigation of using JSON and Jekyll. >> >> I think JSON is not the best format for maintenance. >> This is because it is messy including chunks of text (e.g. for >> additional info on the project). >> Also it does not allow any comments. >> The format is rather strict, with lots of quotes needed, and brackets >> and braces. >> >> I think we should use YAML for the raw data, and (if necessary) >> extract a subset into a JSON file for external consumption. Personally I think it is a mistake. json is rather simple, and are supported everywhere. Yaml on the other hand is less supported (e.g. looked for an online validator without success). Safari and xcode formats json nicely whereas yaml is viewed as raw text. Why do we need comments in the file, it has not been needed until now, so let us not introduce “hidden” data. but of course it is a matter of taste (just like js was). extracting a json file from the yaml file seems to be overdoing it. >> >> As to Jekyll: >> >> Jekyll can equally use a YAML data file, so it is not a problem >> changing to YAML. >> >> At present the attic-test PoC includes a single JSON data file which >> is processed in a plugin script that generates the individual page >> data. >> >> This works well (and it looks like BuildBot supports the use of Jekyll >> plugin scripts - other sites such as GitHub may not) >> >> But I think it would be better to have a separate YAML file per project. >> >> Jekyll can process these as part of a collection. >> This avoids the need to use a plugin to generate the pages. >> I think it also makes it a bit more obvious what is going on (each >> output file has an input file) >> >> And the YAML body can contain arbitrary markup to be added to the >> generated page. >> This would make it easier to preserve the extra information present in >> some of the existing xml files >> >> A question: >> On a tablet, would it be harder to maintain one file per project >> rather than a single large file? significantly ! that was one of the major reasons for my js solution. but let us focus on the solution wanted by the community and what a single person needs. rgds jan i >> >> i.e. instead of updating projects.json one would need to create/update >> a projects/project.md file. > > I have updated the attic-test tree with a YAML-based version: > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/attic/site-test/yaml > > The yaml.sh script in the parent directory will create the output in docs3/. > This should currently be identical to the output in docs2/ - apart > from the date in feed.xml > > If this looks like it will be suitable for use when working from > tablets, I can tidy it up and start migrating some of the additional > text from the xdocs/projects files > > If not, please advise what needs to be done to make it possible to > update the site from a tablet.
