> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-www-owner@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-www-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Mitch Pirtle
> Sent: 28 October 2004 18:26
> To: PostgreSQL www; PostgreSQL advocacy
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [pgsql-www] PostgreSQL.org
> Design Proposal
>
> Dave,
>
> II am clearly offering to help (and not just complain), and
> wanting to understand if my efforts would actually be used if
> I did. I'm also busy working on other FOSS projects, with
> significant time involved.
> So if I spend the additional time away from my wife and kids
> then I want to know it was worth it - that's not too much to
> ask, is it?
It will be, but you'll need to fit in with what we are doing, not the
other way aound. If you really feel you need to be doing something else
thoough, there are other projects that can be looked at - for example, a
new techdocs site; however, it would need a thorough investigation and
justification of any subequently proposed solution. Mirroring is not an
issue for techdocs, however, il8n should probably be considered.
> My objection to a do-it-yourself approach is that anything
> beyond PEAR and PHP is proprietary. That means that you
> wrote it; and as such then you have to support it, and you
> have to document it, and you have to improve it, and you have
> to upgrade it to keep compatibility with changes to
> HTML_QuickForm and DB and so on... With a CMS, you'd
> typically be using a finished system that had been developed
> by dozens of people, with years of experience, with a
> lifespan that supports itself (free upgrades). Such a waste, IMHO.
>
> I agree that mirroring is a huge problem, and anything less
> than the heavyweight systems (Zope/Plone, for example) will
> have major issues.
> Mirroring a dynamic site in general is a major issue, and
> switching to a homegrown one just adds to the complexity and
> effort, no?
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
:-(.
> And I wasn't being rude IMHO, I've already picked on Dave for
> his browsing preferences. He says he has a huge monitor, but
> surfs the web like he is on a Mac Plus. Having a design that
> supports 800x600 to support the handicapped and comply with
> accessibility laws is great in my book. I just think Dave is
> being a weirdo for using such a little browser window ;-)
> Sorry that wasn't so apparent in my previous email.
Maybe (there are certainly people that know me better and probably
wouldn't disagree!), but there are two reasons for that:
1) I have users at work with visual problems who run large monitors at
low resolutions. In the UK it is a legal requirement for any
organisation to provide websites and other services in an accessible
form for such people.
2) Often when I'm browsing, I have many other windows open because I'm
programming. I don't want to switch between them all the time, I want
them side by side so I can read reference material, and code. Apps like
Visual Studion take a lot of real-estate, and I'd rather not compromise
that by being forced to use 3/4s of my screen just to refer to the libpq
docs.
Regards, Dave
