Where's the framework for that?

the great text files framework.

And its IDE, vim.

I prefer nano, as it reminds me to keep the files short.

fenchurch

What makes you think www.ubuntu.com is not prerendered html5?

The page: http://design.canonical.com/2014/03/making-ubuntu-com-respon... Shows as 112 KB by lori in FF. Really? 1/10 MB for a page of text?

jQuery was probably already cached on your end, all 300kb of it

Yes, probably. but that means there is still 100+KB being sent over the wire each time...

And since

http://design.canonical.com/2014/03/making-ubuntu-com-respon...

goes 404, I assume there's a handler that built the page on the fly.

No?

No, e.g. I use this rule in my .htaccess on my blog:

  RewriteEngine On
  RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} !^.*\.html$
  RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f
  RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-d
  RewriteRule ^(.*)$ %{REQUEST_FILENAME}.html

Which means you can access:

http://tycho.ws/music or http://tycho.ws/music.html

ok, so where's the .html file for that page?

I went to http://www.canonical.com/index.html and there was a 404.

Surely there should be something there...

There's also no robots.txt... Odd for a static site don't you think?

I suppose it isn't obvious from the rule I gave, but it doesn't necessarily have to even be web accessible. Why does it matter so much anyway?