Quote:
Originally Posted by FredOnline
I would take issue with some of that, as I have considerable experience in creating Google Sites in recent years
|
Hi Fred,
Certainly not to be argumentative, I'm always interested in developments in these areas. Can you explain where I'm incorrect about my statement? To be clear on my statement, I also mentioned "As of the last time I checked..." so if something has changed at Google, I'm definitely all ears.
A test of course is simply to post the HTML in question on any web hosting service, then load it up as a website visitor would see it, and then check the "view source" option of the web browser and see if there's anything extra that the web hosting service added to your HTML. Sometimes it's subtle, sometimes it's a massive amount of stuff, templates, CSS, tracking tags, ads, etc...
Google sites adds all sorts of stuff to the output of course since it's embedded in their template engine. FM adds nothing. Again, that's not a criticism, since they're useful for different tasks. Google Sites doesn't pretend to be a static/flat hosting service so there's nothing misrepresented either.
Also in reference to the OP, the question was asked, "Does it mean, if I a use a static site generator and it will work out of box?" -- The answer with FM is technically YES (although he may have to configure the built-in FTP client, but that's not a function of whether or not static HTML will work as-is). With Google Sites, the answer would be NO.