Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Rewrite: 11ty website #266

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

Rewrite: 11ty website #266

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

mantoni
Copy link
Owner

@mantoni mantoni commented Sep 12, 2021

This is a suggestion how we could combine per module README files with a "All-in-one" documentation page. The proposal uses eleventy to generate a static website using the README files as content.

For this to work, we need to add frontmatter to the README files. If this is something we want to avoid, we could alternatively store the information in a file called README.11tydata.json next to each README.

We could create a GitHub action to deploy this on GitHub pages, following the steps described here: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/eleventy-github-pages-lea-tortay/

Run locally

  1. Check out this branch
  2. npm ci
  3. npm start
  4. Open http://localhost:8080 in your browser.

Closes #265

@mantoni mantoni added this to the Mochify Rewrite milestone Sep 12, 2021
@mantoni mantoni requested a review from m90 September 12, 2021 15:33
@m90
Copy link
Collaborator

m90 commented Sep 13, 2021

I think the overall structure makes a lot of sense like this.

For this to work, we need to add frontmatter to the README files. If this is something we want to avoid, we could alternatively store the information in a file called README.11tydata.json next to each README.

I think that might be worth it, even if it's only for the aesthetics.

@mantoni
Copy link
Owner Author

mantoni commented Sep 13, 2021

A different approach could be to replicate the structure in site and keep the website entirely separate from the modules. This way the readme files can have different content than the website.

That would also give us more flexibility regarding the website design. What do you think?

@m90
Copy link
Collaborator

m90 commented Sep 13, 2021

This way the readme files can have different content than the website.

I'm not entirely sure I understand this. Would this mean we would have a README in the module root and a totally different file in site? Or are they somehow (sym)linked, derived, processed or similar?

@mantoni
Copy link
Owner Author

mantoni commented Sep 13, 2021

Currently I'm using the readme files to generate the content of the website. We could, alternatively, generate the content from a set of entirely different markdown and template files. They don't have to be the same. The website could live in site and not use any content from the module folders.

My question is: Do we want the readme files to be different, maybe shorter, or do we want the same content anyway?

@m90
Copy link
Collaborator

m90 commented Sep 13, 2021

We could, alternatively, generate the content from a set of entirely different markdown and template files.

How about we start by having everything in site but symlinking the existing READMEs into this directory up until the point we find that we need different content? If I understand it correctly this would also allow us to have frontmatter-less READMEs and define the foo.11tydata.json files in site?

@mantoni
Copy link
Owner Author

mantoni commented Sep 13, 2021

Interesting idea to symlink the readme files. I'll give that a try. 👍

@mantoni
Copy link
Owner Author

mantoni commented Sep 15, 2021

The symlinks with index.11tydata.json files work fine. Thank you for the suggestion!

This is to free up the name `index.html` for the website.
@mantoni mantoni closed this Dec 24, 2023
@mantoni mantoni deleted the rewrite-website branch December 24, 2023 16:13
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants