10:32 a.m.
Now that I have your attention:
So we walked away from FUDcon with a couple of plans.
Plan A: was to put a call out and see if we could get a group of
people interested from a project willing to take on some of the
implementation
We had a number of other plans but let's forget them for a moment, but
we circulated a call to several lists - and we received essentially a
single response from Zikula
Moreover the offering appears to meet the requirements that we stated.
Which brings me to the question - why are we languishing when it comes
to making this decision? We even regressed and talked about if/why we
need a CMS (and I am one of the guilty parties here)
This is plan A essentially fulfilled - I suggest we start making
preparations to move forward and I've already committed to work
getting Zikula packaged.
10:58 a.m.
On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 11:32 -0500, David Nalley wrote:
Which brings me to the question - why are we languishing when it
comes
to making this decision?
Because I don't feel we haven't fully been able to articulate our
reasons for wanting a CMS, and I think it would be premature to choose
one particular CMS before deciding if *any* CMS is the proper solution.
We even regressed and talked about if/why we
need a CMS (and I am one of the guilty parties here)
I'm probably the most guilty here, as I spent a lot of time last weekend
trying to figure out how we get a CMS to handle various aspects of
taking single-page HTML/multi-page (chunked) HTML/PDFs out of our
DocBook toolchain and into a CMS in such a way that it's not a hack.
If Zikula (or another CMS) already have provisions for this, then I'm
happy to move forward. But based on the discussions both here on the
list and in the IRC channel, I don't feel my questions have been
adequately addressed.
My 2 cents (before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization)...
-Jared
11:07 a.m.
Inline reply
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Jared Smith <jaredsmith(a)jaredsmith.net> wrote:
On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 11:32 -0500, David Nalley wrote:
> Which brings me to the question - why are we languishing when it comes
> to making this decision?
Because I don't feel we haven't fully been able to articulate our
reasons for wanting a CMS, and I think it would be premature to choose
one particular CMS before deciding if *any* CMS is the proper solution.
Well I have two responses - how did we get to this stage of things
without articulating why we need the CMS. I think this goes back to
our scope issue more than anything. A CMS is a great tool for the
Packaging and Legal docs that are currently held on the wiki. And
based on the conversations in IRC it sounds like we want to use it as
a publishing platform. - ie - take the publican generated output of
DocBook and make pushing all of it up easier.
> We even regressed and talked about if/why we
> need a CMS (and I am one of the guilty parties here)
I'm probably the most guilty here, as I spent a lot of time last weekend
trying to figure out how we get a CMS to handle various aspects of
taking single-page HTML/multi-page (chunked) HTML/PDFs out of our
DocBook toolchain and into a CMS in such a way that it's not a hack.
If Zikula (or another CMS) already have provisions for this, then I'm
happy to move forward. But based on the discussions both here on the
list and in the IRC channel, I don't feel my questions have been
adequately addressed.
This is something we need to ask - Simon - thoughts here?
My 2 cents (before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization)...
-Jared
--
fedora-docs-list mailing list
fedora-docs-list(a)redhat.com
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
11:26 a.m.
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 12:07:11PM -0500, David Nalley wrote:
Inline reply
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Jared Smith <jaredsmith(a)jaredsmith.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 11:32 -0500, David Nalley wrote:
>> Which brings me to the question - why are we languishing when it comes
>> to making this decision?
>
> Because I don't feel we haven't fully been able to articulate our
> reasons for wanting a CMS, and I think it would be premature to choose
> one particular CMS before deciding if *any* CMS is the proper solution.
Well I have two responses - how did we get to this stage of things
without articulating why we need the CMS. I think this goes back to
our scope issue more than anything. A CMS is a great tool for the
Packaging and Legal docs that are currently held on the wiki. And
based on the conversations in IRC it sounds like we want to use it as
a publishing platform. - ie - take the publican generated output of
DocBook and make pushing all of it up easier.
Yes, the primary purpose is as a publishing platform. The current
tools for doing that, which are highly manual, arcane, and require a
lot more skills, don't allow additional people to participate.
Keeping essential documents that are ACL-controlled on the wiki is the
other major point. That's incongruous with the nature of the wiki,
and causes our admins additional work to tack on those controls. If
those documents need to be protected, let them exist on a controlled
platform, and we can give the people maintaining them all the access
they need.
Anything else we can get on top of that is gravy -- good gravy to be
sure, but not good enough to block moving forward.
Just my $0.02.
--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
11:14 a.m.
On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 11:58 -0500, Jared Smith wrote:
I'm probably the most guilty here, as I spent a lot of time last
weekend
trying to figure out how we get a CMS to handle various aspects of
taking single-page HTML/multi-page (chunked) HTML/PDFs out of our
DocBook toolchain and into a CMS in such a way that it's not a hack.
I was under the impression that Zikula uses XML on the back end? Maybe
we don't import html into Zikula but rather push XML files (Doc Book) at
it and let it resolve them into webpages?
- Eric
11:19 a.m.
Jared,
If Zikula (or another CMS) already have provisions for this, then
I'm
happy to move forward. But based on the discussions both here on the
list and in the IRC channel, I don't feel my questions have been
adequately addressed.
If I could direct you to
http://fedora.zikula.org/index.php?module=Static_Docs&func=view&f...
dex.html - that is some docbook documentation for PostNuke (the predecessor
to Zikula) written by myself in 2005. It's the HTML many-page format, and
it's simply uploaded straight to the web. The Static Docs module handles
URL rewriting, and pulls it into the CMS as you'd expect if you'd imported
each HTML page by hand. You can either force the document to conform to the
website's styles (i.e strip all the inherent style information) or
alternatively use styling provided by the document itself. Hopefully, that
answers your question regarding the docbook toolchain.
I'm happy to expand further and even get a sample of the Fedora docs up
there if you feel it would help.
Simon
5560
days inactive
5560
days old
6 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
David Nalley -
Eric Christensen -
Jared Smith -
Paul W. Frields -
Simon Birtwistle