Since I waded in earlier, I'll wade in again--
I strongly advise using the wiki as much as possible -- its the devil
you know.
Besides, I have serious doubts a CMS will be able to do much better
than the WIKI in terms of formatting-- CMSs are designed for rapid
updates like you would see on a news site such as CNet or a Slashdot.
OSAF top pages are likely not to change very much-- likely not much more
than once or twice a week. (that is about what mozilla seems to do) a
CMS is overkill for that.
Finally if you worry about slashdotting, serve a static set of html
pages off of apache or lightHttpd. Don't use any framework. Just static
pages. You can maintain 4 or 5 static pages with *GASP* dreamweaver or
homesite.
just my .02
Jeremy
Katie Capps Parlante wrote:
+1 -- I agree with Ted's points here. Perhaps either *entirely* wiki,
or just one "launch" page and everything else wiki.
Cheers,
Katie
Ted Leung wrote:
I'm in favor of moving everything to the wiki.
The problem here is not technology, it's poor human organization of
the information, which Priss/Mimi/Pieter are working to rectify based
on the Portal Project taxonomy. If we fix that problem, I think the
wiki is more than adequate. If we don't fix that problem, no CMS in
the world can help us.
Ted
On Mar 30, 2007, at 4:35 PM, Jared Rhine wrote:
Matthew Eernisse wrote:
We've talked about this before, but my vote would be to use this
opportunity to move the basic Web sites to an actual CMS.
For some context, we think we're talking about something like less
than 15 pages. It's not sure yet, as we're just now doing a site
tree so we can enumerate the separate pages.
Do we have a list of criteria to help us decide what type of
technology solution we want to use?
My criteria, when I first raised the techn question, was "number of
pages", "frequency of changes", and "amount of dynamism".
I've two nits with our current system I'd love to improve: remove
showing of extensions (*.php) in URLs, and use of a templating
system which guarantees XHTML-compliant output.
Also, Pieter and others are rightfully concerned about
nav/look/function mismatch between our landing pages and the wiki.
He's asking questions now about to what extent all of the pages in
our landing pages could move into the wiki.
There's some other crazy ideas ("replace wiki with Drupal"), but
another criteria is we're sort of buttoned-up on our sites and
technology in the next two months and so stable going into Preview.
My view, is that we're probably looking at a small handful of static
pages, is a lightweight Python web framework with a nice templating
language. Probably Pylons+Genshi or Turbogears+Genshi. I'm waiting
for site maps to be fleshed out before making official recommendations.
-- Jared
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
