^ It's a great idea in fact. Waiting for Shai's response.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not the kind of person that will use PHP or JavaScript for no particular reason. I'm totally on your side that way too many webpages use these technologies for no particular reason. I just wanted to point out, that I'm able to write either kind of code, if required. Of course a static HTML/CSS page is always preferred, and if it only because serving plain HTML/CSS file is far less stressing for a server than running the simplest PHP script.

However, right now the page is entirely PHP powered, methinks. It has a wiki backend, so all content is most likely stored in database and PHP is used to retrieve it. I don't want to necessarily change that, unless this is requested/desired, of course. Either way is fine for me. The question is how often do people need to change content of it. Of course you can also use both at the same time. There is no reason why not 90% of the pages can be static and 10% of them (e.g. the FAQ) is dynamic, to make it easier to change it, without having to load HTML pages into a HTML editor. As you pointed out, meta languages can also be statically translated to HTML only when they change instead of transforming them on each page request.

Markdown is a very nice language, BTW. I prefer it over Wikitext. Other nice languages are:

* APT - https://maven.apache.org/doxia/referenc … ormat.html
* ASCII Doc - https://powerman.name/doc/asciidoc-compact
* Creole - http://www.wikicreole.org/

However, even BBCode is an option; the extended version also supports list items, but no headlines by default. I personally prefer a crossover of APT and ASCII Doc, but I can also write HTML in plain text editor :-) And if a custom syntax is desired, I can also write a parser for that in PHP or in Perl; I know both languages pretty well. I don't know Python or Ruby, so I cannot help if one of these two languages is desired.

Switching to Dvorak was blind faith (I didn't even look for alternatives when I decided to switch), considering switching to Colemak (since so far I do Dvorak by day and Colemak by night; no decision has been made) is a much more elaborated consideration :-P I wouldn't claim either layout is better in general at the moment, they are just different, but sometimes being different from an objective point of view already means being better from a subjective point of view... if that makes any sense to you.

I have upgraded one Mac to Snow Leopard (from Leopard) and I have bought another one with Snow Leopard pre-installed and neither one had Colemak on it; at least not under that name. Unless I'm just too blind or stupid to find it, I doubt it is baked in. It is not hard to install, though, just put the file you can download from here to either the system wide "Keyboard Layouts" folder or to the one of your user and that's it. No restart required, no admin rights required (not unless you want it system wide), just pick it from the list of available keyboard layouts after copying the file to that directory.

Especially Apple is very conservative in such aspects; the company might be innovative in general, but if Steve Wozniak wasn't a Dvorak typist, I doubt they had even added Dvorak as an available default layout. I think the iPad was the first (and still only?) iOS device with Dvorak support, the iPhones had no support for it (though this might have changed).

BTW, can you actually say "typist" or is that offensive, possibly debasing the person in question?

Sorry if I got that totally wrong!  I could have sworn I saw Colemak listed the last time I changed the layout on a sparkling new mac; wishful thinking on my part perhaps. 

Sorry about that.  Boo.

Mecki: Thanks for wanting to help!  :)

I don't agree that presentation is all that overrated. For me it's not important nowadays I guess, since I'm already a fan of Colemak and navigate these fora just fine (although I hate trying to find my way around the other pages here). And when I first came here I was very enthusiastic about keyboard layouts and would've found my way even if the site were a lot messier. However, the tidy content of the Colemak site in comparison to others did influence my first impression and that is important.

Many people browsing around will give a site about keyboard layouts a quick look to decide if it's worth reading more thorougly or just another 'soon-to-die pet project' instance in the field. A solid graphical impression will help.