Static website generators typically rely on third-parties to provide commenting services. This post introduces static commenting as an alternative and reviews existing solutions.
Comments are an oft-neglected facet of static website generators. Typically, they are outsourced to third-parties (Disqus et al., social networks and news websites) or are simply switched off.
Whilst the pros and cons of the aforementioned are well-documented, the middle-ground — a commenting system that doesn’t rely on a third-party that’s suitable for static websites — is not. Lets call this static commenting and explore its characteristics.
What constitutes a good static commenting approach? Here are a few possibilities:
With these criteria in mind, the remainder of this post reviews existing approaches to static commenting.
Jekyll::StaticComments (source on Github), uses a HTML form and a PHP submission script that emails comments to a given address. Comments are then converted to YAML format using a mail user agent (MUA) hook and rendered in the site with example templates.
Whilst not entirely static (a server running PHP is required), a nice side-effect of this approach is spam is implicitly dealt with by existing email anti-spam technique(s) (whether that’s your email provider’s spam protection or otherwise).
One drawback could be the level of manual intervention involved. Although the author does not specify the exact details of the MUA hook, the process appears to be only partially automated and favours hand-moderation.
However, derivatives that provide further automation are easily achievable. As
the author mentions, the PHP script could be modified to
automatically commit the comment to a
git repository and, with further
hooks, rebuild the site.
The MUA hook is central to the suggested workflow. A mail client that supports hooks/external scripting (such as Mutt) is therefore a prerequisite for this approach. The alternative (copy/pasting the email) is unlikely to be attractive for web mail users or email clients less command-line orientated.
That said, the suggested workflow is only one example; the script itself does not force it and is flexible to accommodate other approaches. For example, email rules could be set up that automatically forward the comment for deployment.
Alternatively, as the author mentions (in comment of the blog post), email could be removed entirely by having the PHP script dump each comment on a server for the moderator to periodically download and review. Further still, integration with Akismet could produce a Wordpress-like, fully automated system.
Tomas Carnecky takes Jekyll Static Comment’s approach one further: removing the form and PHP components and asking commenters to email directly.
Linkage between page and comment is provided using a
mailto: link composed of
comment+ prefix (plus addressing) and the page identifier (typically its
path). The emails are then processed in the same way as Jekyll Static Comments;
using a MUA hook.
This rather ingenious use of
mailto: can easily be integrated in existing
templates and therefore is truly static; no plugins or server required.
It could be argued that sending an email rather than writing in a form disconnects the commenter from the website somewhat. Also, loading an email client just to leave a short comment (for example) may deter some users.
On the other hand, the user will already by well acquainted with the writing
environment provided by an email client (which are typically better suited than
a plain input box). Second, most modern browsers can associate
handlers with webmail clients, minimising loading time friction.
This post set out to explore alternatives to third-party commenting services that are suitable for static website generators.
Despite best efforts, only two approaches were found; the first using a
traditional PHP-powered form, the second being email-based and using specially
A review of both approaches was given and extensions to the former offered.