Re: [BUG] worg-setup.org is outdated

[Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com>]

Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com> writes:

> Just a couple of questions regarding all of this (really just
> background and to anyone who may have the knowledge, not just Bastien)
>
> Is there any reason we don't use a CSS framework, like bulma or
> tailwind to manage the CSS? I know that using JS can be an issue, but
> what about a CSS only framework with an MIT license? This would make it
> *much* easier to have a site which is both responsive and looks good on
> different sized displays, is accessibility compliant, works well across
> different browsers and is easier to maintain while still avoiding
> inclusion of JS (Ironically, I know JS a lot better than CSS!). 

I suspect that the real reason is lack of experience with CSS and JS.
Also, we don't really want a high entry barrier for contributors (but
then, again, we haven't had many contributors to WORG html side over the
years anyway, AFAIK).

Note that JS is not strictly disallowed (e.g. see
https://orgmode.org/worg/code/org-info-js/). It's just that we have an
FSF requirement to have a website viewable from non-JS browsers.
However, even this requirement may not be enforced given sufficient
justification. Only the main orgmode.org website must follow FSF
guidelines strictly (https://git.sr.ht/~bzg/orgweb). WORG
(https://git.sr.ht/~bzg/worg) is more lax. It may be a good idea to use
something GPL-compatible though.

> Finally, Bastien and others who may have worked on worg previously, if
> yuou have any notes or points which you think it would help for me to
> know, please feel free to send them through directly. While I've done a
> bit of HTML and CSS in the past, I've only ever used org mode for very
> simple/minor HTML output and usually for my own personal consumption.
> I've never taken advantage of the publishing side of org. 

AFAIK, worg is very simple. We just rely on ox-html to produce output
and then publish a static website. That's it.

Best,
Ihor