| gabriel rosenkoetter on Sat, 12 Oct 2002 11:20:04 -0400 |
|
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 10:46:40AM -0400, Bill Jonas wrote: > On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 06:58:08AM -0400, Paul wrote: > > I didn't notice if the PLUG site is using PHP, but it should. > > Why? > > It doesn't happen to be, at the moment. PHP is a *programming > language*. There's no need for it unless you *actually need it*. What > problem is the PLUG web site experiencing that it would need to be > driven by a programming language? What do you want the site to *do* > that it can't do with HTML? What does the site need to say that must be > said programmatically rather than declaratively? I know it may sound like Bill and I are beating this into the ground, but you need to understand why he and I ask questions like these. We are, very much, not against the use of *anything*. We just feel that there should be good reasons for changes. (Those reasons are out there, but they need to come from identifiable problems in the website. "The web site is poorly organized," does not yield you, "We should use PHP.") Bill's questions are not, I don't think, meant rhetorically. I've seen various answers to some of them and no answers to others. In any case, if you're going to say something like "The PLUG website should to X," you really also need to include the "because of Y" part. It's just confusing and ungrounded otherwise. -- gabriel rosenkoetter gr@eclipsed.net Attachment:
pgpgbVVqA3abx.pgp
|
|