Autonomía digital y tecnológica

Código e ideas para una internet distribuida

Linkoteca. desarrollo web. Página 5

NetlifyCMS. Open source content management for your Git workflow

Imago voragine.net
• , , ,

Use Netlify CMS with any static site generator for a faster and more flexible web project.

Static + content management = ♥

Get the speed, security, and scalability of a static site, while still providing a convenient editing interface for content.
An integrated part of your Git workflow

Content is stored in your Git repository alongside your code for easier versioning, multi-channel publishing, and the option to handle content updates directly in Git.
An extensible CMS built on React

Netlify CMS is built as a single-page React app. Create custom-styled previews, UI widgets, and editor plugins or add backends to support different Git platform APIs.

Is Gutenberg the End or a New Beginning for WordPress?

Imago voragine.net
• , , ,

Clearly a project the size of WordPress needs some strong leadership and a clear roadmap. However, when that roadmap starts to be clouded by outside factors such as financial pressure to compete with the market, decisions aren’t made in the best interest of everyone. Don’t forget that whatever is implemented in WordPress.org is being built for WordPress.com (one of the main money-making arms of Automattic) and no doubt their biggest concern when considering losing customers to competitors. Gutenberg is a clear attempt to attract new users to the platform.

The major part of backwards compatibility is not breaking things, or doing everything possible to avoid it. Gutenberg simply will break sites. This won’t be white screening, or breaking appearance on the frontend, but as soon as a site is updated to 5.0, a user will have a broken experience the next time they edit a post, if the site relies on custom meta boxes.

The percentage number of sites on the web that are powered by WordPress is often touted and this number will be made up of a variety of different types of sites and site owners. A large number will be developers, freelancers and agencies who have built sites in the past, manage sites currently, and build every new site with WordPress. From experience, these developers typically don’t use page builder plugins but a combination of custom fields and meta boxes to give clients the ability to add all the data needed to be displayed on the site in a controlled and prescribed style.

These people will need to prepare for 5.0 (more on that later) to make sure their clients aren’t affected by Gutenberg.

Out of all the modern frontend frameworks, React was always the first choice for Gutenberg, even after some token debate, and weathering the storm of patent clauses. But adding a shiny new framework to a critical piece of WordPress core is highly problematic and we’ve seen it before. WordPress 3.5 was released with a new media manager, built with Backbone and landed without documentation, no clear extensibility model, and a steep learning curve for core contributors and developers with media-related plugins.

Gutenberg has the potential to go the same way, but undoubtedly it will reduce the amount of people able to contribute to it, without learning React deeply. It also places a burden on plugin developers (in a short timescale) to learn, adapt, and get their plugins ready.

Of course this is possible for the big guys like WooCommerce (Automattic owned, large team) and Advanced Custom Fields (independant small team, huge user base), but this will affect any plugin which registers a custom post type, or meta boxes. Most developers simply won’t have the time, inclination or skills to make them compatible with Gutenberg. We will likely see a lot of plugins broken which just won’t get fixed. That will have a detrimental effect on user experience and the WordPress ecosystem in general.

Core should leave Gutenberg as a feature plugin for longer. The timeline is just too short for people to prepare. It is too great a change to be rushed. I think the decision to be merged should be rethought and only merged when a certain level of plugin adoption by users is reached.

Make WordPress default video embeds responsive

Imago voragine.net
• , ,

Add this to your theme’s functions.php:

function alx_embed_html( $html ) {
    return '<div class="video-container">' . $html . '</div>';
}
 
add_filter( 'embed_oembed_html', 'alx_embed_html', 10, 3 );
add_filter( 'video_embed_html', 'alx_embed_html' ); // Jetpack

And next up, we need to add the CSS that makes it responsive to our style.css:

.video-container { position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.25%; height: 0; overflow: hidden; }
.video-container iframe, .video-container object, .video-container embed, .video-container video { position: absolute; top: 0; left: 0; width: 100%; height: 100%; }

Downloading an Entire Web Site with wget

Imago voragine.net
• , , 
wget --recursive --no-clobber --page-requisites --html-extension --convert-links --domains website.org --no-parent www.website.org/tutorials/html/

This command downloads the Web site www.website.org/tutorials/html/.

The options are:

–recursive: download the entire Web site.
–domains website.org: don’t follow links outside website.org.
–no-parent: don’t follow links outside the directory tutorials/html/.
–page-requisites: get all the elements that compose the page (images, CSS and so on).
–html-extension: save files with the .html extension.
–convert-links: convert links so that they work locally, off-line.
–no-clobber: don’t overwrite any existing files (used in case the download is interrupted and resumed).

Gulp vs Grunt. Why one? Why the Other?

Imago voragine.net
• , ,

Truth is, if you’re starting to work with JS-based build systems, there is a high chance that you’d pick Gulp right away. The prospects for it just seem a little rosier, plus, it has been adopted by a large portion of projects. Yet, if you are still using Grunt and feel comfortable using it, there is nothing to be worried about — the community is still there, bigger than Gulp, and keeps growing. Grunt has almost a couple of years of advantage, and I am sure that large project maintainers will try to stick to it for as long as possible. Another advantage of using Grunt is if all you need is that little built-in set of simple tasks. In that case, you’d feel right at home with it, and Gulp, despite all of its flexibility, will make you spend more time in theory than you need. As with everything else project related, you should choose based on the circumstances.