> Really? Do YOU have experiences with it? I use it for my pages (not big
> piece of art, but anyway: http://www.pvtnet.cz/www/pvt.benkovsk/gimp/ )
> and it works. There are certainly some problems when using perl in
> divertions etc, but it easily allows you to use content-describing
> tagging (as SGML/XML) in addition to appearance-describing one (HTML).
Uhm. Funny enough, right now there is a big discussion in gnome-webmaster list
about wml. The decision not to use wml has been made, but the current site
thats on uses wml. A Japaniese person requested that a link to his site would
be added to the link page in the GNOME website. He had mail four (4) times
before anyone was bothered to mess with the crap known as wml. A new website
is in the works that doesn't have these problems.
The biggest problem with wml(and others) is that the original creator of a
page knows it inside out, and knows wml quite well, since he had to learn it
to create the page. But when new information needs to be added by an another
person, problems arise. The problem is, that most content providers shouldn't
need to be wml experts, and most aren't, so content is not being added.
I am not saying I know a perfect way to make a big website. I personally
would probably go with css, http://www.linux.com/ is a good example of a site
that uses css nicely, and it even works with Netscape 4.
> That said, I think it's not so important what to use, provided that it
> will be free and easily accessible, makes webmaster's routine work easy
> and will keep the site clean as discussed recently.
Exactly. Thus no wml, since it shouldn't be the webmasters work to provide
content. The webmasters job would be to maintain the service and the style-
sheets. He's job should not be to morph someone elses content to the
Ville Pätsi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gimp-developer mailing list