The github pages I've worked on have all been in Markdown, so they're portable.
I also don't see any reason why we can't host pages elsewhere since we control the source repositories. On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) <ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote: > Is it really necessary for our web pages to be served from Apache hardware? > If so, why? > > I understand why we want to control the canonical source, but do we really > need to own web server? > > A concern, for me, would be if hosting on GitHub Pages meant that we could > not easily switch to another host. > > Ross > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ted Dunning [mailto:ted.dunn...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 9:40 AM > To: dev@community.apache.org > Subject: Re: GitHub Pages > > Chris, > > The easy summary is that Apache would like to keep apache sites being served > by apache controlled hardware. > > Github serving pages fails that test. > > > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: > >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> > I think those other comments about Jekyll had to do with keeping all >> > of the site storage on apache servers. >> > >> > >> I'm not sure I understand how Jekyll affects that. Are we concerned >> that GitHub will not render the site's source accurately? And, if so, >> wouldn't that concern extend to non-Jekyll static sources also? >> >> >> > There have been objections in this thread about using github.io >> > based sites even with site name masquerading. >> > >> > >> Does anybody wish to summarize those? I think it would be helpful. >> >> >> > Sent from my iPhone >> > >> > > On Mar 6, 2015, at 14:36, Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: >> > > >> > > Regarding some of the other comments about jekyll... it's not true >> > > that >> > you >> > > need jekyll. You can publish plain HTML or Markdown also. >> > >>
