While I think your questions of 'direction' are best answered by the core team:

* what about URI links to content within one C5 site that automatically generates the appropriate URLs?

- this is already here. 'Clean URLs' is what you are talking about yes?

* Is there any development in the area of content templates? As in end users must only upload text and pictures and choose from predefined layout templates (instead of WYSIWYG editing). My motivation for asking is that end-users / clients often end up breaking a page when trying to do a simple task like changing or adding a picture. I see that it is somehow possible to separate text and images using the block layout feature. Is this the answer to "content templates" or is there more coming down the road?

- Don't know the answer to this question, but would like to see if anyone would be interested in developing a block that did this (for the clients where you really *do* need to simplify!)

Hi,
thx!

Internationalization is on the road map for 2011.
Check out how themes and page types work.
I'm not clear on what you're looking for out of URIs. Can you elaborate?

Best wishes,
(Pecked out on a mobile device...)
http://about.me/frz

On Jan 22, 2011, at 5:51 AM, Concrete5 Community <discussions@concretecms.co=
m> wrote:

>=20

Thanks frz and myFullFlavour for the response.

Re: URI. I am referring to a functionality whereby instead of making a normal link to a specific url within the CMS, there is a tab in the link popup where you can choose the content (from the sitemap, for example) you wish to link to, like a page or blog post. In that way any internal links would still work when migrating from one installation to another.

Do excuse me if I sound spoiled, but I typically work on multiple separate installations for development, testing and quality assurance before enabling content and configuration on a live system. Using "URIs" or dynamic references to internal content would prevent the need to manually change all links in each system in the development chain.

Thanks for your time!

Four30,

What I do to solve what you are talking about (from what I understand) is to just make the link reference the relative url. For example:

Instead of going tohttp://example.com/index.php/test...

I link to /index.php/test

Is that what you were wondering?

riotaj,

thanks for the suggestion. I am using relative URLs currently to get around this on big multi-system installations, especially with pretty/dynamic URLs...

I was mostly wondering if something like this is on the development radar...

All answers highly appreciated. Thank you.

paths are using server variables of BASE_URL (the base url) dir rel(concrete in a folder) and a combination of pagePaths in the db and relative things like that.

In the content block itself, files are linked via fileID which gets it path built from the above stuff.

Same for links for the most part, though that is only through things that pass through the content block controller on save and display.

So moving sites from local dev to live isn't a big deal, some people end up screwing up links to images in themes and things like that, but that is because they don't use $this->getThemePath or similar(or bad urls in css).

That help?

ScottC,

Interesting... This is anyhow accessible via the administrative / content editor interface?

Cheers for the response and thumbs up too all of you for your contribution to the forums! This is always a good sign... :)

yeah what he's saying is concrete5 does this by default. When you use the insert link, image, or file toolbar at the top of the content block, concrete5 is putting a pointer in the content - not a hard coded link. If you move the page you've linked to, the link should still work. If you change where the site is based at (BASE_URL in config/site.php) all links will follow.

It doesn't have support built in for different servers for different file stores - but if that was something you had a real enterprise need for its the type of thing we can probably roll out a solution to.

I think you'll find a fair amount of this kinda thinking under the hood of concrete5. While putting a page in edit mode is pretty simple feeling, we certainly designed concrete cms as a solution that could handle big business needs. I have a hard time seeing it competing with teamsite just because we focus on content, not workflow - and we don't have $200m in the bank. It can easily compete with the mid sized players in the market you mention though - the reddots and alfresco's of the world.

We're also working on a workflow add-on geared for enterprise. With concrete5 out of the box you basically get binary workflow (preview/publish). What we'd like to do for larger groups is offer customizable approval flows (writer -> editor -> qa -> management) and some tools for managing multiple instances as well. If thats the kind of stuff you're looking for, you should PM me.

Interesting stuff.

For the moment, C5 seems to be meeting most of my key needs in a smallish test environment. What I am doing though is trying to gauge the "horses" in the CMS race. The finish line is not yet around the next bend, IMO, but I would like to place bets in favour of those leading the pack with good stamina...

I appreciate the feedback I have received from the C5 community and the work you have done to create what in my initial testing seems to be a solid system done right.

The "enterprise" functions you mention have my interest and I will be monitoring progress as I get more and more familiar with the system.

Cheers.

Very interesting. It's my impression too that concrete5 is only perfect (and very perfect) for small, not-so-complicating websites. Something I really miss is the content manager where all pages/contents are listed in 1 easy to sort layout such as joomla's or wp's.

dashboard > sitemap gives you several views for finding pages.
We've built sites with more than a million page in them with concrete5.

Why you'd want to look at all that content centrally with one huge paging interface versus incontxt where it's used, escapes me.