1. 23
    1. 4

      You sacrifice a certain amount of control by using a static site generator, like link properties.

      Shameless plug: and that is why I’m making an SSG that gives you full control over the element tree without JS. ;) https://soupault.neocities.org/plugins/#safe-links

      Nothing against Zola though, it’s a good project.

      1. 2

        Sorry if this is a stupid question, but why would you want safe links on a static site generator? I thought things like nofollow were for comment sections, wikis and other places where you let random members of the public post stuff. If only approved people are posting, why would you need these? Just to make you less of an attractive target for hackers?

        1. 1

          Well, there’s a few reasons that I can think of:

          • Good link etiquette
          • If I add forms for comments or email subscriptions in the future (which is definitely planned), I don’t want people hijacking my window when somebody opens a tab
          • I want external links to open in new tabs

          I’m not sure if it’s really that important, but it makes me feel good and it’s what I’ve always done.

          1. 2

            noopener on target=”_blank” links I understand because it’s a security measure, but nofollow just tells search engines not to give weight to your links, doesn’t it? Wouldn’t that be bad link etiquette, since you would be hurting the sites you link?

            1. 1

              I generally don’t use nofollow (I actually think I’ve never used it). Guess I misunderstood the question. noopener and norefferer are the most common ones I use, and I tend to throw them on every external link when possible.

      2. 1

        That’s awesome! Currently taking a break from rewriting my site (gotta let it sit for like… a week? Is that healthy?), but I’ll keep that in mind. Looking at some Github issues for Zola, it seems like they’re trying to work this out, but for the time being I’m going to have to deal with raw <a href="">s. :(

      3. 1

        Also a shameless plug, but http://mkws.sh/, not sure if there is any sacrifice in there.

    2. 1

      Out of curiosity, did you compare zola to cobalt (another rust static website generator) ?

      1. 2

        I looked at them both, but ultimately chose Zola because it seemed more well known (so more community, support, and coolness-points once I start contributing). They both seem pretty neat, and I’ll always support a Rust-based project.

    3. 0

      It’s a bit weird how Zola advertises itself as having no dependencies. It clearly has some. I guess it just means you won’t have a typical webdev npm ecosystem in there.

      1. 7

        I think that they meant no runtime dependencies, not compile-time dependencies.

      2. 2

        I think @hauleth has the right idea: no dependencies for you, because it ships as one binary. You are right that it appears to have some development dependencies if you’re working on the generator, but for the average user you’re not going to run into the mess that you do in the JS world – you just write markdown and go.