Sjur Moshagen wrote: > 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.
Fanstastic. The responses from Sjur and Paul are exactly what we needed to hear. Thanks. You help to set the development direction. -David
