> >I'm not claiming it is. I'm claiming that using it (or not) is the first
> >decision we should make (because it has ramifications, big or small, on
> >almost all of the other decisions.) If you think there is a more
> >fundamental decision that needs to be made first, let's hear about it.
>
> Oh well I still see them as separate domains and not really dependent on
> each other.
For example, if we pick a web publishing environment which supports HTML
4.01 but not XHTML, then that's that argument sorted (though I think we've
sorted that one anyway.)
> Agreeing on a logical structure I find more important but it
> doesn't affect deciding on how the site is managed. You can decide it now
> if you think its a solution for the short term if its a longer term
It's most emphatically *not* a solution for the short term. All the
planning we are doing in this newsgroup at the moment is for the long
term. Short term stuff is being done by the short term team (i.e. me, as
no-one else was interested) and I've got several things I'm working on.
There are going to be no incremental changes, but one "big" change, where,
over a short time, everything we want to do in terms of reorganising the
site happens. It's less painful that way. That's a definite from the staff
meeting.
I anticipate that that day is at least three or four months off. It would
be nice to launch at the same time as Mozilla 1.0.
> solution then its a significant candidate so long as it works, I like
> choices though.
There's plenty of choice around. Recommend something else if you like :-)
> In the longer term it would be worthwhile putting up a pilot site and
> getting an idea as to how acceptable or not Zope would be. The pilot site
> needn't be very complicated but it should let us exercise all the major
> areas. Then if any other candidates turn up there's a benchmark against
> which to decide.
Indeed. However, if people are going to shoot Zope down, it's not worth
it. Hence this discussion :-)
Gerv
