@spf13 I would really love to have a web-based editor and maybe there is a good way to integrate it with Hugo. But I think it’s something that needs to be thought through carefully.
I might be completely wrong here, but I’ll try to share my thoughts:
In its current form I can describe what Hugo does in one simple sentece: “Hugo takes text files, combines them with templates and creates HTML”.
If you introduce web-based editing it might become more complex to describe what Hugo is and what it does. @isaac has provided a nice list above with questions to be discussed. Those questions show that the list of features could quickly grow large:
- User management, permissions
- Versioning content, rollback, compare versions (git?)
- Complete editing workflow (like Drupal’s workflow module)
- Multiple languages of interface
- Multiple languages of content
- Managing content types (which would define the form fields that are displayed to enter the content)
- Search functionality in the editor
- Managing media assets
- Deployment to development, staging and production environments
- And more…
Now, I actually need (almost) all those features and I would love to get all this in one binary. But I don’t think this will all happen in a way that makes me and most others happy at the same time.
I guess my biggest concern is that Hugo could loose some of its charm that comes with just (or mostly) beeing a static generator. Hugo is about “making website creation simple [and fun] again” - and it does it in an awesome way! (Wasn’t this the reason we moved away from Wordpress/Drupal/Joomla?)
I expect Hugo with an Editor to be perceived differently by users. New users might first look at screenshots of the editor and think about what is missing and what they don’t like. Then some might turn away not recognizing they missed out on (one of) the best static generators even if it could be used without or with other editors.
Like I said, maybe there is a good way to integrate it. But it is important that communicating what the core of Hugo does stays simple and clear.
An alternative could be to provide various options for editor integrations (community provided in a similar style as the Hugo themes). Some possibilities: