That list is just what I have collected from Radiant's core-team Basecamp. Re: Abstract Content Model - Doubtful. I understand the conceptual reasons behind the abstraction of content; however, I'm with John on this one. There seems to be very little benefit for the amount of indirection and complication that would be introduced. If we want Radiant to maintain simplicity and clarity, I think we need to stay away from becoming a content-management "framework" like ezPublish, Plone, Xaraya, and many others. It's really just overkill for most scenarios.
When we evaluated ezPublish at KCKCC we started calling it "hardPublish" -- there were too many barriers between us and the content. And in the end, we wanted control of all of the output. Radiant provided that for us. I guess what I'm saying is, I'm glad Radiant embraces constraints. That makes it not fit in all scenarios, but if you need something else, you should use it. Be pragmatic! Sean On 3/30/07, Jacob Burkhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >From the presentation: > > 0.7 - Intaglio (Blogging) > Comments, tagging > Mars Edit support > Convert from WordPress, Typo, Mephisto > Robust import/export > > > > Oh? Where can I learn more? Is there a planned future release to > address what's being discussed in the "Radiant replace Pages with > Abstract Content Model" thread? > > -- > Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. > _______________________________________________ > Radiant mailing list > Post: [email protected] > Search: http://radiantcms.org/mailing-list/search/ > Site: http://lists.radiantcms.org/mailman/listinfo/radiant > _______________________________________________ Radiant mailing list Post: [email protected] Search: http://radiantcms.org/mailing-list/search/ Site: http://lists.radiantcms.org/mailman/listinfo/radiant
