Jan Schaumann <jschauma@netmeister.org> writes:

> I believe that we all agree that this is probably best done by
> generating the resulting .html files from some input file(s) as we have
> done previously with .list and are doing now with .xml.  If .html files
> are generated from "source" files, then they should be treated as
> "object" files and not be kept in CVS.  Instead, people should just make
> changes to the source file, commit them and the webserver should
> generate them automatically.

We have a mirrors mailing list that mirrors SHOULD read. When we
introduce another way of mirroring without cvs, we will warn them much
before doing it and tell them how they can update.
If non-base tools is a concern, we have sup(1) in the base that should
do the job.
I'm sorry, but I don't see any other way to do this.

> This stresses the fact that all tools required should not be
> resource-hogs and in fact be as few and as as simple as possible.
> (Otherwise developers and users won't install them, and the web server
> won't be able to handle the load.)

xsltproc may be the killer. I think that if we don't like it, we must
investigate other tools.
I don't think we should move away from XML just because of
xsltproc. XML is, IMHO, a very good way to make documents look
standard in htdocs.

-- 
Rui Paulo - rpaulo@fnop.net