spacetourism

The rules specifically namedrop Github: > Template engine websites, tools, and sites that generate HTML from text, markdown, or script files, such as Webs, Wix, Weebly, GitHub, Jekyll, and Replit, are NOT permitted. With Jekyll being there, I can only assume the intention was to mention GitHub Pages as an example, but as it is the rules clearly say using GitHub is NOT permitted. They could've questioned this discrepancy before the competition while reading the rules before starting, and at the very least just not mention using GitHub. On top of that, until yesterday they actually (accidentally) ran Jekyll during CI as well because it is hosted on GitHub pages: https://github.com/thstsa/spacetourism/commit/27834acf978a7d...

The revision history doesn't seem to support that. They seem to just mash enter a lot. Especially it looks like they have lots of edits where they add blank lines and then another tag, and then remove the new tag but not the blank line. E.g. https://github.com/thstsa/spacetourism/commit/6411ce05009cc6... Or sometimes just replacing things they intend to outright remove with blank lines. With multiple committers, it seems unlikely they're all templating and then checking in the output of the template engine.

They used GitHub pages as a dumb host for HTML files, JavaScript, images, CSS. Repo link in the story, here for convenience: https://github.com/thstsa/spacetourism Even has a .nojekyll file in the repo, and they since moved publishing to Netlify.

Hmmm, the html files seem like the output of some form of generation, or perhaps a crappy web editor? eg: * https://github.com/thstsa/spacetourism/blob/main/technologie... * https://github.com/thstsa/spacetourism/blob/main/index.html * https://github.com/thstsa/spacetourism/blob/main/pricing.htm... Those multi-line blank gaps all over the place are not something that generally occur in hand crafted or "from scratch" html. That being said, the teacher sounds out of their depth and should either gain a clue or refrain from being involved in judging next year. ** Optimal practical solution would probably be to try and get the rules fixed, so future participants don't get erroneously disqualified.