A question for clarification: I like to have options, but sometimes options are a bit confusing.
On 29 Jun., 06:56, john muhl <johnm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jim (saturnflyer) and i have been working (most of the important work > is Jim's) on a branch of page_attachments that adds some new interface > features to the page_attachments extension so here is the question on options: wouldn't it be wise to concentrate on just one (nifty) asset extension? I see an asset extension as a vital part of a CMS (=> see, it says content ;-) or the other way round: what would you suggest to use in the future? - page_attachements - paperclipped (and there are some extensions which extend paperclipped) - gallery (ok. its just for images ..) - MediaMaid and with this comes another question: Ok, I know that Radiant is "different". And I love it. I recently did a presentation in my web 2.0 community meeting about radiant. And one statement burned so hard: No end user will use this! Why do I come up with this? And why now? Because I followed the discussion about radiant version numbers. And here goes my suggestion: Radiant 1.0 should: - be Rails3 based - have some core asset handling features (doesn't matter if this is an extension) - have one WYSIWYG Editor integrated with this assets and other ressources (e.g. allow for search pages and insert a link) - should define a way on how to do i18n content (not admin area) - should have some eyecandy like a HUD were you can search a page based e.g. on the title (a nvaigation alternative, if you like) - should define a blogging API so that it can be used with some standard blogging tools. And again: I love Radiant. I use it very much. I do contribute back. I want to make it better. So what do you think about it? cu edi