3 ms·

So instead of taking me at my word, you assume the opposite of that, that I in reality do understand what you mean. Pot, kettle etc. No, I truly still don't un

by croon 5y ago

So instead of taking me at my word, you assume the opposite of that, that I in reality do understand what you mean. Pot, kettle etc. No, I truly still don't understand what you were or are suggesting. Have you moved the generation software from your machine to serverside behind the colophon page, making it no longer static? If you don't want what you apparently consider an uncharitable interpretation the easiest way is to provide more room for another. Please ask someone in your life to read this exchange and give an outside perspective on it. It might be eye opening. Or you'll have confirmation that I'm just winding you up, or whatever it is I'm doing.

cxr 5y ago
> Have you moved the generation software from your machine to serverside behind the colophon page, making it no longer static? What? No. Geez. The /colophon page itself, as stated, already contains the "transformations that need to be applied to produce the desired output". Aside from that page, there is nothing except the runtime baked in to the browser that you are already using. That content lives as a file inside the source repo of the site you're trying to publish—and y'know what, even though I suggested making it accessible from /colophon in the final product, in fact, that doesn't even matter! You could have it be called README.html in the source repo for all it matters, just like I already mentioned. There is no need for a separately installed "full language runtime". There is no separate binary instead, whether self-contained or not. There is no separate browser extension. There is no separate haha-here's-an-application-server-so-it's-not-actually-a-static-site-after-all. There is no need for any of those things. Why do you continue throwing even more of these types of questions my way when every previous one has already been struck down by an answer in the negative (and a "yes" to any of them would contradict the very premise)? I strongly suggest you go through your exercise of having someone else read through this, because this is exasperatingly repetitive in a way that is not my fault. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ghB0mBugww https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ghB0mBugww>

by croon 5y ago

cxr 5y ago

> Have you moved the generation software from your machine to serverside behind the colophon page, making it no longer static? What? No. Geez. The /colophon page itself, as stated, already contains the "transformations that need to be applied to produce the desired output". Aside from that page, there is nothing except the runtime baked in to the browser that you are already using. That content lives as a file inside the source repo of the site you're trying to publish—and y'know what, even though I suggested making it accessible from /colophon in the final product, in fact, that doesn't even matter! You could have it be called README.html in the source repo for all it matters, just like I already mentioned. There is no need for a separately installed "full language runtime". There is no separate binary instead, whether self-contained or not. There is no separate browser extension. There is no separate haha-here's-an-application-server-so-it's-not-actually-a-static-site-after-all. There is no need for any of those things. Why do you continue throwing even more of these types of questions my way when every previous one has already been struck down by an answer in the negative (and a "yes" to any of them would contradict the very premise)? I strongly suggest you go through your exercise of having someone else read through this, because this is exasperatingly repetitive in a way that is not my fault. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ghB0mBugww https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ghB0mBugww>