Imants Cekusins <ima...@gmail.com> writes: >> doesn't seem to be any particular reason to > require JS for basic functionality on a documentation site.) > > Js is widely used these days. E.g., ReadTheDocs use Js [1].
The fact that JavaScript is widely adopted makes it acceptable to use, but it is not a _reason_ to use it. I don't see anything about the (mostly static) Cabal website that motivates its use. I will discuss that more below. > For someone with basic React knowledge the website is easy to maintain. This statement sounds like you are volunteering to create a new website, but not to maintain it. Is that what you mean to say? > SPA arch allows for faster navigation between the pages. Client side > rendering frees up the server. In this instance, SPA seems like a solution in search of a problem. There is nothing about the static content of the Cabal website that would motivate using SPA. I find the claim dubious, but let us assume that SPA would lead to faster page navigation; is page navigation too slow now? Likewise, client-side rendering may free up some server resources; is the Cabal website server-resource bound now? To my untrained eye, the motivation for the new design seems to be neophilia. That's good for an experiment, but I don't see the motivation to adopt it. What does this redesign offer to our users? What does it offer to us? _______________________________________________ cabal-devel mailing list cabal-devel@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel
