Den 22. aug. 2006 kl. 15.13 skrev CFAS Webmaster:
David Crossley wrote:
Why would such people be using Forrest? If they only
want simple websites, then there are plenty of other
tools out there.
Speaking for myself, as a user of Forrest for just such a purpose,
I can say that it fits my needs rather well. I wanted an easy-to-
use application that accepts many different formats and produces a
nicely skinned website. In particular, I wanted something that was
open-source, not specific to Windows and would be something that
could be used by my eventual successor without extensive training
to keep the current format.
While Forrest does not match perfectly, it is the best fit for my
needs that I've been able to find.
This is pretty close to my findings as well. When I started to use
Forrest, I wanted the same:
- open source
- not Windows-bound
- XML as main input, but also other input formats (we use the wiki
input module extensively)
- several output options
- focus on content after the initial setup
And in addition:
- i18n
- Unicode support
There are other packages out there, but they all seemed more clumsy
or complex than Forrest. I had already played with Cocoon a bit, and
liked the sitemap construct.
I don't like the thought of loosing Cocoon, I don't mind the "bloat",
and I can do what I need to using mainly XML. If everything turned
Java as a prerequisite for doing more complex things than writing XML
documents, as was suggested in earlier posts in this thread (IIUC),
that would probably be my goodbye to Forrest.
Sjur
