Steven Noels wrote:
On 12 May 2005, at 17:21, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
But it's also true that editing xml files in a svn repository sucks as an editing tool. Using wiki (or daisy or other solutions) is much better.
I like the notion of
daisy -> forrest -> out
makes very good sense.
It does, yet there's obvious huge bits of overlap between Forrest and Daisy's publishing mechanism. IMO, Daisy is perfectly able to host Cocoon's documentation, both for editing and publishing.
<snip/>
What do people think?
IMO the problem is more political or sentimental than technical.
Although Daisy seems to fulfill a need that has no satisfying answer today to write and manage content, we're quite happy with the Forrest-based publication process. So why would we want to trash what works and is using an Apache project in favor of another tool?
Note that I don't question the value of Daisy nor the good intentions of you OT folks, but I want to point out the non-technical problems. We may also question ourselves about using Lenya.
And Drupal and other PHP-based systems are IMO a dead end from a community acceptance POV (unless they are recommended by the ASF infrastructure): why would Cocoon use a PHP CMS when it is itself used to build large CMSes around the world?
These community and dogfood issues are IMO the main reasons of the current state of our doc system, much more than the technical ones.
Sylvain
-- Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies http://apache.org/~sylvain http://anyware-tech.com Apache Software Foundation Member Research & Technology Director
