Basic static site

[wridgers]

I am happy to set up a basic static site here.

I plan on using Jekyll since it seems to be the most common static site builder that people are using and GitHub pages natively supports it.

[ff6347]

Great. I added a basic structure. Jekyll is awesome I use it a lot

[ff6347]

Maybe we add a CNAME so we have the same content also under extendscript.org or the other way around I we create a webhook that pulls everything to the server.

• [ ] CNAME
• [ ] Webhook

If we use a webhook we have two options.

• Checking the "_site" folder into version control
• installing jekyll on the server and build directly there.

[undavide]

Fabian, we may just use GitHub pages for the hosting, as I did for the HTML Panels course: I bought the domain then linked it to GH, basically a CDN for free :-)

[ff6347]

okay. How did you do that? I only heard of using CNAME files for having custom domains for gh-pages. Do you have tutorial/article for reference?

[undavide]

CNAMEs should be the way to go: https://help.github.com/articles/using-a-custom-domain-with-github-pages/

I've modified them in the GoDaddy control panel, according to the info provided in the link above and it worked. You then commit the Jekyll project to the gh-pages branch and then GH handles everything. (I did that few months ago so I'm not super-fresh, but if I made it, it should be simple enough!)

[ff6347]

aight. Thanks. I'll take a look into it when the site is a bit further down the road. If we want to write special jekyll plugins for "don't know what yet" we can also run jekyll directly on the server. I already have that server running and just bought the domain.

[dominikwilkowski]

Just saw this issue. Hi guys :wave:

The solution you got here makes all sense to me and is what we discussed in ExtendScript/AMA#9. We have used this setup many times. GH for hosting the HTML. A domain pointing to it. When we have PRs coming in for additional content we just merge them into the gh-pages branch and up it goes. No webhooks or another server needed.

Can I do anything to help?

[dominikwilkowski]

Clicked submit too early :) We can then include the wiki as a submodule into this repo. That way we have two repos, one for the website setup and one for the wiki. Might be just me but the wiki on the website would be the one thing that adds the most value to it and improves SEO.

[ff6347]

Having the site as a sub module might be cool. If we add a package.json we could also clone it with npm. I like this idea a lot. The golly mum powered wiki then works as a scratchpad and still can be reached. With a build process for the site the wiki gets pulled, transformed and incorporated into the site. No obsolete content and a searchable wiki.

Can I do anything to help?

Yes you can. We should create some separate issues for things like:

• layout
• style
• seo
• build process
• tbd

I think @wridgers is on holiday. So nobody is working on this right now.

[dominikwilkowski]

FYI I'm happy to create a build script that can pull the submodule and all that. Just thought we better wait for @wridgers to get back to make a proper plan before jumping in.

[ff6347]

@dominikwilkowski sorry for the delay. I've been out of town. Waiting for @wridgers sounds reasonable. In what way could the wiki be organized? Just pages? Or should we add tags? Having tags would make it more useful imho. Tagging could be by important features for that page. Like effects, textFrame and so on. I would suggest using the real object names from the API

[dominikwilkowski]

Of course tagging makes sense. All built into jekyll if we take that path.

[wridgers]

@dominikwilkowski This sounds great to me, I haven't had a chance to start yet (@fabiantheblind is right, been on holiday) so I'd welcome you making a start.

[dominikwilkowski]

Great. Let me see when I get some time and I'll build something in two repos of my own. If you like it we can transfer it over to this org.

[dominikwilkowski]

Not going stale here just very busy. Sorry folks. Just had a look at Stack overflows new documentation feature. This would be one we should be using: http://stackoverflow.com/documentation/javascript

[ff6347]

This look pretty good on SO but unfortunately…

extendscript Documentation Proposal
This tag is too new, or too low activity, for Documentation to be created for it.

http://stackoverflow.com/documentation/extendscript/commit

btw. No worries about the time you invest. I'm also caught up into another project.

[dominikwilkowski]

Yeah still in beta. Looking great though. I hope I'll get a minute or two in the next couple of days. We'll get there :)