leggn at denison
Feb 8, 2011, 10:51 AM
Post #11 of 13
I am under the impression that Matt has proposed adding a feature
whereby users - content editors who *log in* to bricolage (*not*
end-users visiting a website) - may add comments to assets (i.e.
stories, media). Kind of like version notes. I think this comments
idea could fit into the workflow concept rather well, given enough
I did not think his proposition had anything whatsoever to do with the
end-users interacting with the output website (if, indeed, that is what
you are producing with bricolage).
Matt, can you clarify?
On 2/8/2011 1:43 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Feb 8, 2011, at 10:28 AM, rolfm [at] denison wrote:
>> Quoting "David E. Wheeler"<david [at] kineticode>:
>>> Besides, Bricolage is not about serving content or providing content delivery features. There are better solutions for that (well, better-ish). I'd rather keep Bricolage separate from delivery. It's a solid content management, workflow, and publishing platform, and that's what it should remain, IMHO.
>> But doesn't "publishing platform" equal "content delivery"? Even if you're just pushing it to Apache to send out? Nor do I think Bric should necessarily serve content.
> That's distribution, yes, distribution to delivery servers. It all depends on your vocabulary and definitions.
> I'm not keen on front-end servers pushing content into Bricolage. It violates the separation of content management from content delivery that is at Bricolage's philosophical heart. I know some folks have done it using the SOAP interface, and that's fine. But I don't think it's something that should go into core Bricolage.
> After all, you add comments, and then what? Polls? Contests? Voting? Rating? Psh. That's what Facebook is for. ;-P