Hey all,

I am currently working on making a "publicly-consumable" version of the
CMS system I wrote for my clients over the years (and releasing it Open
Source, of course). I went the home-cooked route because I was so
intensely frustrated with all of the bloat, disregard for standards (not
just HTML & CSS, but also things like URL naming conventions), and the
"reinvent the wheel" syndrome. I wanted something that would be very
simple, extensible, and could be easily integrated to work with other
packages (like b2evolution) rather than rewriting every single web app
for it.

So, those were my gripes, my itches to scratch. What are yours? I know
a lot of you run CMS systems, and there have been quite a few posts
about the pros & cons of CMS like Drupal and Mambo lately. So, what
dissatisfies you? What satisfies you? What made you choose your current
solutions, and are you happy with it?

TIA!

--
David Hennessy
http://maidix.com/

David Hennessy <david@maidix.com> wrote:

....

People calling W3C recommendations/drafst "standards". Which is confusing,
since there is also something called ISO HTML.

As for CMS: please don't use XHTML. If you have to ask why, you probably
really shouldn't use it :-D.

As for CMS, I am working on an offline, local version for several reasons
:-p

--
John Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/

Perl RSS Builder: http://johnbokma.com/perl/rss-web-feed-builder.html

John Bokma wrote:

My forthcoming CMS supports pretty much every version of XHTML, but also
ISO HTML. :-)

http://demiblog.org/

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

David Hennessy <david@maidix.com> wrote in
news:LzjRf.4285$Ub.3258@trndny07:


I have many many gripes about CMS systems.
1 - Most CMS's lack an ability to manage specific types of content, which
need a specific type of information architecture, characteristics, and
relationship to one another. IMO, *some* content types are begging for
very specific ways of managing them, i.e. glossaries, faqs, etc. Content
management systems should exploit opportunities to manage these specific
content types. A really killer CMS should allow the user to tweak how
these specific content types are handled.

2 - CMS's make it too hard for people customize the look & feel of the
site. This is a criticism of most OS software, IMO. I understand that
some people might want to just install & go, but others might JUST want
the functionality that the CMS provides. But the use of special template
engines, such as Smarty, means the person using the CMS now has to learn
the template language, too, or be stuck with unreasonable limitations in
how things look.

3 - It is too hard to add your own stuff. This is kind of related to the
above, I guess, but I've found it is a pain to add my own stuff to a CMS.

4 - featuritis. A lot of OS CMS's throw every stupid little thing onto
the program and call it a "portal". I can't tell you how much I want to
fucking barf every time I see a *-nuke web site. All they're doing is
throwing together MORE un-usable shit. Even worse is that the stupid
users of these products will try to use all the features, too, causing a
site that looks too busy and chaotic.

5 - Administrative login form placed on public pages[1]. Almost all CMS's
have the form to login right there on each page. Why? Even if 10 people
administer the site, does the rest of the world need to see this form?
Credit: Jeffrey Veen. He said it first and I agree.

6 - Overly complicated configuration and administration.


--
Karl Groves
http://karlcore.com
http://chevelle.karlcore.com

Accessibility Discussion List: http://smallerurl.com/?id=6p764du

Toby Inkster <usenet200603@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote:

Ah, demiblog is yours. Well, I hope it supports HTML 4.01 strict. To me
XHTML is a dead end and I doubt it's going to happen, ever. (To be honest,
I hope it's dropped).

--
John Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/

Textpad quick reference card (pdf): http://johnbokma.com/textpad/

John Bokma wrote:

Certainly. HTML 4.01 (strict, frameset and transitional); XHTML 1.0
(strict, frameset and transitional) and XHTML 1.1 are the primary
supported document markup languages.

With the frameset and transitional flavours, the CMS itself only outputs
strict, but includes a frameset/transitional DOCTYPE, so you then have the
option of using transitional/frameset features for your own content.

ISO HTML and XHTML 2.0 are somewhat experimental, but should mostly work.
(For ISO HTML, it is the user's responsibility to ensure that headings are
arranged appropriately.)

I'm keeping an eye on HTML 5 too.

Feeds are supported in RSS 0.91, RSS 2, Atom 1.0 and HTML (not decided
which flavour yet).

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

Toby Inkster <usenet200603@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote:

[..]

Sounds like a very good job :-)

If it's available, and if I have a bit more time, I will have a look at
it.

--
John Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/

Perl RSS Builder: http://johnbokma.com/perl/rss-web-feed-builder.html

John Bokma wrote:

Doh! I'm guilty. I just like the way it rolls off the tongue. ;-)



I'm gonna have to invite the rhetorical insult and ask why anyway. :-P
I've been using XHTML for a few years now. I like semantic order it
imposes. I don't really see a reason why a CMS should care whether
you're using XHTML or HTML. It should only care in regards to what
settings HTML Tidy uses to clean up the code that the WYSIWYG editor, if
any, generates (since I wouldn't trust any WYSIWYG to make good code, no
matter what their web site may claim).



Do you prefer to work off-line before uploading? I was tinkering with
the idea of a feature where you could work with a local installation,
then synchronize (files and DB content) to a live version. I have to
admit, I'd much rather work that way myself.


--
David Hennessy
http://maidix.com/

Karl Groves wrote:

I agree 100% with this. OTOH, you have CMSs that have completely
different (and dissimilar) systems for managing different types of
content. This is definitely an area that is begging for simplification.



I also agree, although I have incorporated Smarty into mine, simply
because it's so simple. If you want to add code to your template, you
can still do everything in PHP, or you could get better caching and use
Smarty syntax, which is quite similar to PHP. But, my whole motivation
was simpler... it's a caching/template engine that works really well, is
well-maintained, and lets me create a bunch of "tags" that people can
stick into their HTML templates -- here's the title, here's the content,
etc.



Yeah, most CMS' extensibility is almost a joke. A CMS should work easily
with other software packages, not require the packages to be rewritten
as modules.



HELLS YEAH! I'd like to buy you a beer for saying that. I uninstalled
Mambo after realizing how insanely much hacking I'd have to do just go
get it to power a simple web site with a single content area on every page.



Good point. Seems like bad template design, if anything.



Indeed. That's why I like the wiki concept. Right idea, but massively
bloated and tangential execution in the Open Source community so far
(just look at the spaghetti dinner called "Wikimedia"). And what's up
with creating Yet Another Markup Syntax and Yet Another Namespace? Now,
all I need to do is get off my butt and finish the software... :-P


--
David Hennessy
http://maidix.com/

John Bokma wrote:

PHP class for feeds is in a more-or-less usable state:
http://svn.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.c...log/Feed.class

Usage is:

<?php
require_once 'Feed.class';

$f = new Feed( "Example.com",
"http://www.example.com/",
"This is the example.com feed.",
"en_GB");

$additionalinfo = array(date=>strtotime('yesterday'));

$f->add_item( "Article 1",
"http://www.example.com/?article=1");
$f->add_item( "Article 2",
"http://www.example.com/?article=2");
$f->add_item( "Article 3",
"http://www.example.com/?article=3",
$additionalinfo);

print $f->output_atom();
?>

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact