Subject: Re: [xsl] XSLT or static site generator From: "Kevin Veroneau kevin@xxxxxxxxxxxx" <xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 18:43:27 -0000 |
Thanks Eliot, that is the best answer, and it fully makes sense. However, I should point out that a static site generator could be based on XML/XSLT, and still be user friendly. B I have nicely integrated both Markdown, and Highlight.JS into XML/XSLT with no difficulties. B I created specific XML tags, which in turn generate the required HTML to render the tag contents as either Markdown or Highlight.JS. B It's an absolute marvel, and makes writing technical documents a breeze. B The only thing missing is an XML editor of sorts to make editing the documents easier. Eventually I plan on releasing a static site framework based on XSLT, which would nicely format XML documents. B I like the fact, that for XSLT, there's no post processing required before publication of the site or documents. B A static site generator requires all the HTML files to be regenerated and uploaded each time. B Original Message B From:xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent:May 2, 2016 9:17 AM To:xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Reply-to:xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject:Re: [xsl] XSLT or static site generator On 5/2/16 9:22 AM, Eliot Kimber ekimber@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Many of the documentation Web sites and online help for the products you > know and love are generated from DITA XML, including Oracle, IBM, Adobe, > Cloudera, Oculus, Nokia, and many many others (those are just companies I > know about personally). See https://www.staticgen.com/ for a useful list of open source static site generators. DocBook and DITA have both been doing static site generation for years (decades in the case of DocBook). I've done production work with DocBook, DITA, and Middleman (a Ruby-based static site generator that supports Markdown), though I'm not doing anything with doc tool chains in my current role. While I really enjoyed writing xslts and appreciate the power of semantic markup, I understand the popularity of generators like Middleman, Jekyll, Sphinx, etc: These static site generators support light-weight markup formats that don't require (or all but require) an awesome commercial editor like Oxygen to be productive. Github in turn supports these formats by presenting a rendered view when you browse the repository and rendered diffs in pull requests. Even without those features, the lighter weight markup formats are easier to read in the line diff tool provided by your favorite IDE. Editors are the site of holy wars and asking people to use anything other than their one-true editor is often a non-starter. These static site generators typically have support for web dev convenience technologies like Sass (+ Bootstrap), CoffeeScript, and Haml to make css and JavaScript bearable and free hipsters from the need to write any angle brackets at all. There's nothing to stop you from using Sass and CoffeeScript as part of an xslt-based generator, but having a kit with all that built in, plus a little server runs locally and auto-refreshes in your browser every time you save a file is a convenient way to author. The open source toolkits for DocBook and DITA offer base xslts for generating html, but leave it to you to incorporate the other convenience technologies. Regards, David
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] XSLT or static site gener, David Cramer david@x | Thread | Re: [xsl] XSLT or static site gener, Eliot Kimber ekimber |
Re: [xsl] XSLT or static site gener, David Cramer david@x | Date | Re: [xsl] XSLT or static site gener, Eliot Kimber ekimber |
Month |