El dt 25 de 07 del 2006 a les 11:27 +0100, en/na Thomas Wood va escriure:
I still don't think we should rule out a good build system that creates static pages.
As Greg requests, can the people in favor of keeping the current system make an evaluation of the requirements, as we are doing with the new CMS candidates? http://live.gnome.org/GnomeWeb/CmsRequirements About the current system, I'm specially concerned about: * a comfortable framework for editing content (commits are showstoppers) * full text search (we would need a tool for that) Also about * shall provide feeds (RSS, Atom, etc) and the goals * Own channel for publishing the official news of the GNOME project * Single gateway to all the news sources provided by the GNOME subsites Perhaps we could have all the news related stuff under news.gnome.org, manage them through a CMS fully equipped with feeds features, tags and all the marvel dynamic pages can offer to news related sites (i18n here wouldn't be a problem since news are a one-shot work easy to track, with no further editing/updating) My last but not least concern is the homepage, that shouldn't be static. Au contraire, it should reflect everyday all the activity and life generated in the GNOME project. But static PHP (or something) managed with the current system could provide a vivid homepage operating with the dynamic data spread through the GNOME subsites, isn't it. Perhaps the core reason why I think the current system is not enough is the possibility of having a 'myGNOME' alike experience being a registered user and getting the information and services tailored to my interests. Olav, Anne, Journalist A, user B, ISD C etc would get different homepages and perhaps also different wgo structure. But well, none of this belongs to the current release goals and they are not even agreed goals at all. I don't want to introduce red herrings, nor I want to stop thinking in the big picture. I hope my obsession for migrating to a good CMS is more understandable now. However, I realize the current system evolved could be a reasonably good choice for the strict wgo if we solve the content edition problem. IMO this is more important than the i18n problem, since there is no point having a good solution for translating if you don't have a good solution for publishing first. -- Quim Gil /// http://desdeamericaconamor.org | http://guadec.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Això és una part d'un missatge, signada digitalment