Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMS

Christian Lohmaier wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> > If the Document Foundation must choose a tool that will be
> > flexible enough to rebuild all the current OpenOffice.org infrastructure
> > on it
>
> No. I strongly disagree. Not one tool that can do all.

Well, for the Web part I still believe that a consistent user interface
would be a big advantage. You perfectly know that N-L leads often work
on their N-L website, software localization (Pootle), QA (TCM, QATrack)
and the more we can consolidate on one technology (not the same system!
but systems with the same technology) the better for them.

> And even that: Duplicating the extensions site would be a waste of
> time and efforts. There are already two repositories, the OOo one, the
> FSF one. It would be bad if there would be another one, just for the
> sake of having it.

I'm not saying this, and actually I'd better not say what I think about
making a new extensions repository. But the Steering Committee
blacklisted the OOo extensions site on day 1 (the release notes stated
that references to the OOo extensions site were a mistake) and committed
to using the FSF repository. Which obviously is sub-par: it's enough to
open http://extensions.libreoffice.org/ to see it. The quote by RMS in
http://documentfoundation.org/supporters seems to make it clear that
LibreOffice will use an alternative repository (i.e., the "FSF
repository", not a new one).

> > the Silverstripe demo (and of course Drupal too) seems to
> > support translation of the single pages: but is that what you want?
>
> Well, this is a reiteration of what has been discussed already. No, it
> is not *all* that we want. That's why I did put the subsites

I honestly believe it is impossible to have both translatable pages and
subsites; it just doesn't make sense. Even though technically we can do
both, I'm quite against translatable pages unless there is a reason for
that. I envision a user experience where, based on browser preferences,
the user is just served http://it.documentfoundation.org instead of
http://www.documentfoundation.org by default if he uses an Italian
browser. Put aside the fact that both systems support them, how do you
see translatable page as an advantage here?

By the way, an important requirement is of course the ability to use the
CMS in your own language: from http://translate.silverstripe.org/ I see
that German and Slovak are the only OOo languages with a > 90%
translated interface, while in Drupal this is true of most widespread
languages.

(I agree with Ben about the other items, so I won't repeat his answers).

Regards,
  Andrea.


-- 
E-mail to website+help@libreoffice.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe
List archives are available at http://www.libreoffice.org/lists/website/
All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted