- From: Geoff Deering <gdeering@acslink.net.au>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 09:32:05 +1000
- To: <sdale@stevendale.com>
- Cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: Steven Dale > Lenya is new to me.... looks like it could be a great way to have authors > contribute to the website without breaking the accessibility. Have you > played with it? > > -Steve I've never used it. But I have been watching it's development from when it was Wyona, but until about the last 6 months I have seen too many bugs and problems on that list to warrant touching it. Most of the recommendations then were to keep downloading the nightly builds. But it does seem to be far more stable now and I see far less gotchas on the list, and I too have been thinking to really put it too the test. Yes, I absolutely agree that Cocoon/Lenya looks like probably the best standards based solution for collaborative content. I've been involved in working with CMSs since 1996, when we built a CMS at Charles Sturt Uni for HSC Online (http://hsc.csu.edu.au/). It was primitive, but pretty good for that era, users did not have much problem using it. I'm not a CMS expert, but I have been focused on the whole problem of collaborative authoring and standards based publishing, there are still so many holes in the products out there. One thing I feel they all lack, including Cocoon is a versioning and metadata database based on Dublin Core. If you normalise a database, based on the DC elements, you get a very good data set to manage population of pages and publication (including everything from meta tags, to img/alt, etc), you also get a CVS snapshot of exactly which information was involved in each publication. It is often a requirement for web publishing that a version of every change published be kept. A daunting task, unless you have a system to manage it. I hope to find the time to take a good look at Lenya, but as you know, something like Cocoon/Lenya, a quick look at can take days or weeks. Geoff
Received on Tuesday, 22 June 2004 19:32:42 UTC