On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 23:24 -0800, Karsten Wade wrote: > It would be great if the CMS or some other tool would give a > collaborative, browser based wysiwyg editing experience for DocBook > XML that is in a version control system. There are as many reasons > why that won't work as there are to give it a try. In the meantime > ... I think your post brought up a really good point, and one that I spent a couple of hours wrestling with over the weekend, before throwing my hands in the air in defeat. Ideally (like you say above), the CMS would be *the* place to author, edit, and render official documentation from the Fedora Docs team. The more I thought about it though, them more I'm starting to lean *away* from a CMS. Let me see if I can clearly articulate why. 1) Revision control. One of the things we'd like this CMS to do is to provide revision control. So far, as I haven't seen a CMS that handles revision control nearly as cleanly as either the wiki or using an SCM system such as Subversion or git. 2) Document creation and editing. Ideally, we'd have a wysiwyg editing tool in the CMS that would output perfectly valid DocBook. I don't see this happening any time soon. This means that whatever we create inside the CMS doesn't lend itself well to repurposing or to easy translation. 3) Translation. This is an area where most CMS systems do poorly as well. How would we make this work with a CMS system? Check in the primarly language version, along with the PO/POT files, and have the CMS render the translated versions? Again, I think our current workflow has a proven method that works, even if it's not highly automated. To make a long story short, what if instead of concentrating on a CMS, we concentrate on a system to take our "created-in-the-wiki-converted-to-docbook-(and-optionally-translated)-and-rendered-to-HTML" documents and easily publish them on the web? In other words, let's not throw out our current system (with it's easy editing, working translations, and DocBook XML core). Let's just take the parts that are the roughest (which I'm presuming are the presentation parts) and fix those. > Make things clearer? Muddier? Slightly filmy but clear enough to > drive? You certainly articulated the purposes of a CMS much more clearly than I could ever hope to. I'm just not sure I've caught the vision of why a CMS would be better than (most of) our current setup. -Jared -- fedora-docs-list mailing list fedora-docs-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
