We use Interwoven's Teamsite at work. Going from version 5.5.2 to 6.1 has been nothing but a disaster. The Standard version of 6.1 is buggy and as they put it they are working on it and would probably have a solution in the coming months. that is not having a go at Teamsite... but all i am trying to say is..
validation I still think is a different kettle of fish than content management. and on the premise that were true.... and agreeable(though I know the boundaries are rather vague here) CMS should not have a sales pitch that their code is 'valid' as opposed to the rest. CMS by definition are modules that manage content. If they did validate code(not a requirement) that is good but a rather redundant feature. Validation is the work of the architect, designer, developer not the module. therefore, selling a product or trying to with a 'we produce valid code' is an eyewash! my $0.02 no I dont have anything against WordPress but i do think that statement is a mouthful. On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 20:23:21 -0400, Vlad Alexander (XStandard) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Geoff, > > >>But still it is no guarantee to maintain the sites > >>standards compliance when you hand it over to the client > > Actually, we are working hard to address this specific issue. Check out > http://xstandard.com > > Regards, > -Vlad > XStandard Development Team > XHTML Strict / 1.1 WYSIWYG Editor > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Geoff Deering" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 6:45 PM > Subject: RE: [WSG] CMS > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Amit Karmakar > > > > > > When we say CMS we mean Content Management, well in a nut shell > > > managing the content, publishing etc. Content Management and > > > Validation of code are 2 different things. > > > What does the group think? > > > > > > > I think the boundaries are slightly blurred in this area. It's true that > > CMSs and Code validation are separate in many products. If a CMS was to > > enforce code validation it would loose acceptance and market share in the > > quirks mode market. So most CMSs wisely have these features as add in > > modules, plugins, macros, whatever, which facilitates both market needs. > > > > These tools are not so much a requirement for the developers sake, as most > > standards based developers can easily build templates that will validate. > > The problem comes in with users adding content via whatever means the CMS > > facilitates this, and having backend tools to clean this up to meet > > standards based QA. > > > > The minute you have users adding content, and you want to address W3C > > standards and web accessibility, the ATAG guidelines > > (http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10/ & http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10-TECHS/) come > > into play. These guidelines are meant to address any type of authoring of > > web sites, including any form with a textarea for posting content. > > > > If you read these guidelines and have a problem with them in the context > of > > web based authoring, I share your dilemma, because there are issues here > > that need to be addressed in ATAG2 to better serve all areas of web > > authoring > > (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2004JanMar/0104.html). > > > > It's very difficult, almost impossible to comply with ATAG when deploying > > web based authoring interfaces, but the development community has > addressed > > this issue to a large degree to make our life easier with the backend > tools > > to address these requirements. > > > > Any front end or backend system that allows users to manage content is by > > definition an authoring tool, and if you want to maintain the standards > > integrity of your site then you need to check and make sure that all > > authoring input is parsed, checked, corrected and validated before > > publishing it, otherwise non valid markup can enter your system and your > > page is no longer valid. Of course this is not much of a problem if you > > don't really care about standards compliant markup. > > > > MT, TextPattern, Drupal, Plone, Cocoon, etc all have modules to manage > this > > requirement. But still it is no guarantee to maintain the sites standards > > compliance when you hand it over to the client. If they are allowed > access > > to the engine or templates, then the QA standards compliance component of > > the deliverable is then void (at least that's how I work, cause if you > don't > > state this clearly, they will come back at you for delivering a faulty > > publishing system). > > > > But as far as most of the commercial offerings, like Interwoven Teamsite, > > Documentum, etc are concerned, I don't think they address this issue at > all, > > I could be wrong, I don't know them that well, but I have used them > briefly > > and didn't see anything to address these issues. > > > > Geoff > > > > ***************************************************** > > The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ > > See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > > for some hints on posting to the list & getting help > > ***************************************************** > > > > > > ***************************************************** > The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ > See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > for some hints on posting to the list & getting help > ***************************************************** > > -- Regards, Amit Karmakar http://www.karmakars.com ***************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *****************************************************
