Tiki could become (also) a Static Site generator. This could be done like Sculpin does it.

Why do it

  • Performance: static HTML and image files are faster. A CDN can be used for all content, not just CSS and JS
  • Security: fewer attack vectors


Site visitors would be on the static HTML generated by Tiki (
Editors would go to a different URL that could be on a different server ( This could be higher security. Ex.: Restrict access by IP address, 2 factor auth, etc.

Then, static HTML regenerated by Tiki as the site editor decides and it replaces the current HTML. This would be a subset of available Tiki features and it could be a subset of the available content (only content visible by anonymous)

Why not do it

  • It's extra work and ongoing maintenance.
  • Will people really use it?

To investigate