Ross Gardler wrote: > David Crossley wrote: > >Ross Gardler wrote: > > ... > > >>>I am also wary about turning Forrest into a poor person's > >>>content management system by using htmlarea and such. > >> > >>I agree I think we should deprecate the htmlArea plugin (it probably > >>doesn't work anymore anyway). What other plugins are there that cause > >>concern about being a poor mans CMS? > > > >Well it is hard to know where the line is. > >Our mission statement is intentionally vague. > >http://forrest.apache.org/guidelines.html#mission > >The Introduction on the home page also avoids > >mention of it. Perhaps it would help to have an > >FAQ about the CMS aspect. > > > >Every day i intend to explore the new "NoteTaking" plugin. > >(Oh, something wrong with the online docs.) > >I suspect that that is a fine use. > > The note-taking plugin is quite different from CMS. It is simply a place > to jot notes about each page. No version control, no user management > etc. They are rendered separately from the core content. All notes are > stored in a single file, linked to the source files by URL. > > Editing is just a plain text form field - no wysiwyg or anything like that. > > I use it in a (protoype) educational product that allows text books to > be distrbited as Forrest content objects. > > I have no problem moving it over to Burrokeet if it blurs the boundaries > too much. Thinking about it it may be better to do that in order to keep > the distinction between publication and content editing. It would also > provide another off-site plugin which would be a good idea.
Wait. I was trying to say that it is probably a good example of something that is within our scope. And probably nicely defines the limit. -David
