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

Reply via email to