You don't have to require wiki-style formatting. If you give them something like the markdown editor on StackOverflow , they won't really care or notice. Then you strip/re-encode on the backend to ensure it's okay. If people care about not being able to do random new things, they'll complain... and then they'll live
The legacy systems at TheDailyBeast.com allowed for anything in them when I started there. One of the top things we needed to do on a CMS migration was drop that, so we could control layouts and future designs. When we merged with Newsweek , luckily they had just gone through that process -- and we could leverage an army of scripts, test suites, and their on-call contract agency to proofread and manually audit everything that passed the test suites. The financial costs on this were very significant, and it was complete-fucking-misery for every developer working on this stuff. In the past year I've consulted to 5 other major publishers on Operations / Revenue and Tech Platforms - every single one has been suffering from allowing HTML on the page, and has been investing heavily on trying to get HTML out. Once it's in there, you get very constrained on future upgrades and design , and it breaks ad units like crazy. You can't control as much with CSS, you have sections overflowing into others, and -- unless you were lucky enough to have some sort of HTML cleanup serverside, you almost always end up with some malformed HTML that can/will break the pages. Even though it's content, you manage to accumulate a ton of technical debt allowing HTML in there. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/pylons-discuss/-/KwxOcG3BOMkJ. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en.
