I would prefer to use Markdown with the Jekyll framework ( https://jekyllrb.com/). Jekyll handles Markdown, it handles CSS (via SASS) and it would allow the site to live in a git repo.
Also, I found that other projects use Jekyll with great success, here is just one example in the Flink project: https://flink.apache.org/ Nice looking site, clearly more modern and fully customizable. Bruce On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 > > I like the Markdown (or whatever easy format.. non xml based). We will > need to choose a framework for that. do you have anything in mind? > > I also think we should have a consistent look and feel. > > > I will be supportive on this... > > > First thing will be to have a framework chosen.. > Second to have a github we collaborate... > Third.. maybe we could use one of those video calls to talk about how to > do it. > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 11:20 PM, 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 > > > > -- > Clebert Suconic > -- 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
