Hi Bruce, As per the other mail thread, I'd like to put my hand up to this effort.
I agree with comments around the site needing to live in GitHub so a more PR style and contribution approach can be had. Likewise +1 re markdown (or similar) , there will need to be some HTML obviously but large amounts of content should be in a markdown or simple editorial form. My personal feelings (but not strongly opinionated) it should be a single site but separate clear sections for: ActiveMQ 5.x (I think during the big discussion on the vote someone called it "Classic" I quite liked that nice way to call it) ActiveMQ Artemis CMS NMS. I think the site needs to reflect the new logo (colours and style) and it be great to have its designer on board (looks at Martyn Taylor) Is it maybe worth setting up a GitHub repo with the current content exported from confluence, even if it's in html for now, that way either we can find a tool to convert it or at least we can share the manual burden of handling it. Cheers Mike Sent from my iPad > On 7 Dec 2017, at 04:20, Bruce Snyder <[email protected]> wrote: > > Several opinions have been expressed recently that the ActiveMQ website > needs some attention and that Artemis should be made more prominent. I'd > like to discuss some ideas to see what we could achieve on this topic. > > If we are going to make Artemis more prominent, the first concern I > identified is that the ActiveMQ website and the Artemis website are > authored differently. The ActiveMQ website is authored in the Confluence > wiki and exported to HTML automagically whereas the Artemis website is > authored in raw HTML. As a result, the two sites have a very different look > and feel to them. This presents some challenges to using the content > between the two. > > But this presents other questions -- do we want the two sites to look > similar or different? When someone looks at Artemis content, do we want the > user to immediately know that they are looking at ActiveMQ content vs. > Artemis based content solely due to the look and feel of the site? Should > there even be two different sites? > > I would prefer to have the site authored in a language that is easier to > write than HTML (such as Markdown). I would also like the files comprising > the site to live in a git repo. To give the site a modern look and feel > means using CSS (e.g., SASS, etc.). All these things can be achieved using > Jekyll, but first we would need to convert the raw HTML files to Mardown to > put in git. I have experimented with some tools to convert HTML to Markdown > and they are less than ideal. Does anyone have any experience with this? > > Sorry for the rambling. Anyone else interested to help tackle this thorny > set of issues? > > Bruce > > -- > perl -e 'print > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );' > > ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ > Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/> > Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
