4a10d0497e
Two main purposes of changes here: - To make the formatting and indentation of the raw output prettier; - To simplify the HTML yielded by dropping unnecessary bits. The 404 changes are a tad more extensive, altering the actual wording to match conventional stub 404 pages a little more. |
||
---|---|---|
.github | ||
completions | ||
components | ||
docs | ||
src | ||
sublime_syntaxes | ||
sublime_themes | ||
test_site | ||
test_site_i18n | ||
.editorconfig | ||
.gitignore | ||
.gitmodules | ||
azure-pipelines.yml | ||
build.rs | ||
Cargo.lock | ||
Cargo.toml | ||
CHANGELOG.md | ||
CONTRIBUTING.md | ||
Dockerfile | ||
EXAMPLES.md | ||
is-ehh.svg | ||
is-no.svg | ||
is-yes.svg | ||
LICENSE | ||
netlify.toml | ||
README.md | ||
rustfmt.toml | ||
snapcraft.yaml |
zola (né Gutenberg)
A fast static site generator in a single binary with everything built-in.
Documentation is available on its site or
in the docs/content
folder of the repository and the community can use its forum.
Comparisons with other static site generators
Supported content formats
- Zola: markdown
- Cobalt: markdown
- Hugo: markdown, asciidoc, org-mode
- Pelican: reStructuredText, markdown, asciidoc, org-mode, whatever-you-want
explanations
Hugo gets for the template engine because while it is probably the most powerful template engine in the list (after Jinja2) it personally drives me insane, to the point of writing my own template engine and static site generator. Yes, this is a bit biased.
Zola gets for multi-language support as it only has a basic support and does not (yet) offer things like i18n in templates.
Pelican notes
Many features of Pelican come from plugins, which might be tricky to use because of a version mismatch or inadequate documentation. Netlify supports Python and Pipenv but you still need to install your dependencies manually.