Josh,
> > > 2) An easy-to-edit content section (WYSWYG CMS or Wiki),
> >
> > This we can already do.
>
> Techdocs? That's still too buggy to actually use. If you
> ever finish it,
> then we can discuss that as an alternative.
I have repeatedly asked you to put together a list of what's not
working, but all I hear is "it's not working". I know there are issues,
specifically with tags that can get in that are not allowed. But nobody
has told me *what* tags those are, and usually when I do something in it
I don't get exposed to them, so I just don't know. As long as I don't
know what to fix, it's kinda hard to fix it.
> > This we cannot currently do, but it would probably be
> fairly easy to
> > do it.
>
> Our concern here is that dynamic functionality in the main
> site takes years to complete due to lack of resources --
> techdocs, for example. We don't want a
> system two years from now, we want one tommorrow.
The new techdocs stuff took a couple of weeks, once I started on it.
What took time was the discussion wether we should hvae a wiki, or move
to a non-custom CMS, or whatever. Coding took a couple of weeks, and
that was coding *only* in a couple of spare hours now and then in the
evenings.
> And we don't write
> brand-new code for www when we already have code on another
> system that works right now.
That's a good point, though.
//Magnus