Re: Experiences with these CMSs



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: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Aix=F2?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_=E9s?= una part d'un missatge, signada digitalment



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]