[Edu-sig] Another update from the field...

[Dethe Elza]

On 20-Aug-06, at 2:39 PM, kirby urner wrote:

> On 8/20/06, Dethe Elza <dethe.elza at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Does Eliot consider Zope 3 a good example of XML-based CMS?  I've seen
> it presented as Model-View-Controller, with ZODB providing an API to
> the model, XML controlling the View, and Zope + custom Python being
> the controller.

Doubtful.  I don't know of anyone who considers Zope 3 as a good  
example of much of anything, as it's too new.  Zope 2 is an  
application server and framework you can use to build a CMS, but it  
certainly is not a CMS, XML or no.  Plone is a CMS built on Zope 2,  
and Silva is an XML-based CMS built on Zope 2.

>
>> If HTML is the scary bit, I suggest looking at reStructured Text/
>> Markdown/Textile as alternatives (depending on need).  All convert to
>> nice (X)HTML.  reST is the most complicated, but can also be
>> converted to XML, PDF, PPT, and other formats, and you can add your
>> own hooks to bring in more advanced features.
>
> "Convert to nice (X)HTML" where though?  You're still implying some
> engine doing the translation, whereas straight XHTML/CSS liberates you
> from anybody's Wiki or whatever framework.

All three lightweight markup tools I mentioned have python  
implementations.  So to your question, "convert where," the answer  
is, "wherever *you* want."  It's just Python.  Straight XHTML/CSS can  
be very liberating, but I've used/taught HTML for more than ten years  
and frankly I still prefer:

There are three kinds of lies:

* Lies
* Damned Lies
* Statistics

to:

<p>There are three kinds of lies:<p>
<ul>
     <li>Lies</li>
     <li>Damned Lies</li>
     <li>Statistics</li>
</ul>

Granted, you can do this with a WYSIWYG HTML editor, but frankly,  
that isn't going to get you any closer to understanding the HTML than  
a lightweight format is.  I'm all in favor of knowing how to sling  
raw HTML in a text editor, but also for knowing when to take  
shortcuts and save yourself some headaches.  The lightweight markup  
tools tend to produce very clean HTML, too, while what I've seen from  
WYSIWYG tools has left permanent scars on my retinas.

> Per my friend Gene Fowler's vision, I think we should just plan on
> spreading XML fluency at least to a point where fear of XHTML is the
> exception, not the rule.  The basics aren't that hard -- arguably as
> simple as all the rules reST gives you.

And the basics are great, as far as they go.  The basics of reST are  
even simpler, just format your text the way we used to in email, back  
before HTML mail became the norm.  You don't have to use all of reST  
any more than you have to code fully accessible, fully semantic HTML,  
for example not everyone needs to start with Mark Pilgrims treatise  
on accessibility:

http://diveintoaccessibility.org/introduction.html

> Gene's vision:
> http://controlroom.blogspot.com/2006/08/more-cast.html
>
>> If getting the content up on the web is the problem, a wiki or blog
>> tool might be the answer, or simply showing them how to share a
>> remote directory to the desktop for editing.
>
> Too non-standard for a basic company website.  This is a small startup
> that can't afford to look too quirky, given the invention itself is
> already on the wild side.  For a sneak peak:
> http://www.4dsolutions.net/flextegrity/ (I'll be taking it down within
> 12 hours, so expect a broken link pretty soon -- sharing with you
> because you track the Bucky stuff some).

Looks interesting.  How the site looks should be up to the CSS  
though, not the tools used to write it.  I understand that most wikis  
and blog tools have default layouts that mark them as distinctively  
wikis and blog, but they don't have to, and they're usually pretty  
easy to customize.  Of course, I'm speaking as a guy who is writing  
his own blog software because the existing ones weren't easy enough  
to customize for me, so take my opinions with a grain of salt.  Heck,  
most simple websites don't need more than a standard template, static  
files, and some server-side includes.

> The real site will debut on flextegrity.com in the near future,
> probably as a PHP site (i.e. I expect my good advice to be rejected).

Too often true.

>> A full-fledged CMS is often the wrong solution even for the high-end
>> corporations that they're generally targetted for, and always require
>> more effort than is anticipated.
>
> Yes.  A CMS is a wonderful thing when it's the right tool for the job,
> but in too many cases it's promulgated as a way to make the web
> "friendly" to newbies, whereas just learning a little HTML in a
> WYSIWIG editor would be a kinder gentler thing to share with them
> (keeps them free of the CMS itself, a gravitational field).

CMSii (what's the plural of CMS?) may be marketed as making things  
easier, but they're also about vendor lock-in, management control,  
and knowledge capture.

> Per Gene's vision, I want to see more mixing of XML with everyday
> language arts.  Learn some tags at the same time you're learning basic
> punctuation, and the difference between a verb and a noun.  No one
> finishing the Shuttleworth sequence, for example, should feel "afraid
> of HTML".

Hear hear.  I fully agree and support that vision.  On the other  
claw, XML/HTML shouldn't be put on a pedastal either.  XML is the new  
ASCII.  I'm amazed that there are still conferences and such talking  
about the wonders of XML.  It's time to move past that and work with  
the formats that matter (of which XHTML is one).  XML is important,  
but it's low-level important.

> Kirby

--Dethe

"The Brazilian government is definitely pro-law. But if law doesn't  
fit reality anymore, law has to be changed. That's not a new thing.  
That's civilisation as usual." --Gilberto Gil, Brazilian Minister of  
Culture