Content Management Alternatives

date:2003-11-24 16:21:19
category:Content Management
>I'm not sure what the issue is,
>and why "simple content manager" needs definition.

Neither was I until I read your reply.

I did  not know enough to formulate the correct question.
What I was struggling was when do you use simple
hyperlinks/html vs a content mgr vs a database.
I finally have some rules of thumb to select
between them.
>Since word searches are fast and almost free,
>it seems odd for you to exclude it

Ooops. Did not intend to imply this. Sometimes
google is great, at othe times, I get overwhelmed
by the results. That is why I buy books. Books
provide me w/ context and structure.

Which seems to lead to the following:

  1. If you have very little content or very little structure to your content, you can manage the links manually. Little content means that you can’t justify the expense. little structure means that you can’t formalize the structure in a way that your content manager can be used effectively.
  2. If you have enough content to justify the expense and some structure, get a content manager to track links properly, and keep the current and consistent. Some problems are amenable to a content manager, but not structured enough for an RDBMS.
  3. If you have content and enough structure to justify the effort required to represent it in a database, then generate HTML (and the like) from a RDBMS source.

Previous topic

Who’s Problem Is It Anyway?

Next topic

Why Content Manager?

This Page