4 ms·
it doesn't work with any kind of static web hosting which is a shame given that it's all static content anyways. The scripts could be adapted to work without r
by pilif 5y ago
it doesn't work with any kind of static web hosting which is a shame given that it's all static content anyways.
The scripts could be adapted to work without requiring URL rewriting on the server.
The second complaint is about styling which currently doesn't seem possible. If you're a project of any considerable size, you probably will want your docs to be branded in some way which is not possible either ATM.
- joosters 5y agoThose are certainly issues, but note that they have nothing to do with the alleged main point of the article, in that they make it unusable for open source projects. Quite the opposite, they are unrelated to the licensing at all. I think it is a fair criticism to point out that the author seems unhappy about a non-OS website yet they somehow think this is an OS issue.
- yarcob 5y agoThis is not about licensing. The problem is that DocC is incompatible with the current tools that many Open Source projects use. Sure, you could use DocC for an OS project and set up your own server to host it. It's probably pretty cheap to do that on a VM. It would require just a little bit of learning about web hosting and would require minimal maintenance. But why would anyone do that when Github pages is completely free, requires zero maintenance, and everyone knows how to use it already? A lot of small Open Source projects currently use Github + Github pages for hosting docs because it is such a convenient offering. If you want to use DocC, you have to look for something else.
- Brian_K_White 5y agoThere are many different reasons a thing can be considered unusable. This certainly qualifies. The problem isn't specific to github.
- realityking 5y ago> it doesn't work with any kind of static web hosting which is a shame given that it's all static content anyways. As far as I can tell, that’s not true. The output is completely static and just requires some very basic URL rewrites. The Netlify config in the linked blog post (https://josephduffy.co.uk/posts/hosting-docc-archives https://josephduffy.co.uk/posts/hosting-docc-archives) illustrates this quite nicely. While Netlify has some Function-as-a-service capabilities DocC uses none of that.
- pilif 5y ago> As far as I can tell, that’s not true. The output is completely static and just requires some very basic URL rewrites. My understanding of static webpages is that there's zero processing happening server-side. "Basic URL rewrites" counts as processing in my book
- djxfade 5y agoI have hacked "URL rewriting" on Github, bu having a custom 404 page, that rewrites the URL as a query parameter. And then in the app just use the history api to take that query paramenter and replace history without an actual reload.
- tombl 5y agoI've deployed SPAs on GitHub Pages before, and you can just rename the index.html to 404.html and the site will function just as normal with no modifications.
- realityking 5y agoI think that’s an arbitrary line you’re drawing. Every webserver does some URL rewriting, otherwise you wouldn’t be able to to use /docs, /docs/ and /docs/index.html. The difference is just that this requires some more custom rewriting rules to facilitate being a single page app. I personally even disagree with that architecture, I think it’d be better to pretender the content for all pages (like, e.g., Gatsby does) but I wouldn’t call it not a static page.