Dave,
> Which is why we investigated CMSs in depths before we started, and found
> that even advanced ones such as Bricolage couldn't meet our requirements
>
> :-(.
No offense, but nobody "investigated existing CMSes in depth", or if they did,
it was not discussed on WWW. What happend in my recollection was that the
people who were in favor of CMSes (like me) were not willing/able to do the
work to set them up, and the people who liked a more nuts-and-bolts system
were willing to do the work, so that's what we went with. The people who do
the work get to make the decisions on how it's to be done.
Bricolage, for example, runs the WHO web site, the Register, Radio Free Asia,
and and several other major, multi-lingual sites. It is also designed for
mirroring, working on the idea of "burning" stuff to HTML files instead of
dynamically served content. It's quite capable of doing PostgreSQL.org.
The problem is that it requires Perl Mason expertise to set up and design
pages, and our WWW team is primarily HTML and PHP coders.
Gavin Roy is currently working on a system, Framewerk, which may become a
better fit for our community once he gets export-to-static-html working.
Actually, we could probably use it for Techdocs right now.
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
