Sitewide constants / variables

DW is not in any way a CMS. It's an HTML, code, and file management
system.

....unless we bring Contribute into the equation, and then the definition
starts getting muddy again... ;0)

DW is not in any way a CMS. It's an HTML, code, and file management
system.

...unless we bring Contribute into the equation, and then the definition
starts getting muddy again... ;0)

We dont need to bring Contribute - according to your way of thinking, DW
already is a CMS, because it has the template parameters feature, which is
nothing else as substitution of variables :-).

DW is not in any way a CMS. It's an HTML, code, and file management
system.

...unless we bring Contribute into the equation, and then the definition
starts getting muddy again... ;0)

We dont need to bring Contribute - according to your way of thinking, DW
already is a CMS, because it has the template parameters feature, which is
nothing else as substitution of variables :-).

We dont need to bring Contribute - according to your way of thinking, DW
already is a CMS, because it has the template parameters feature

Templates = design/branding. That's not content.

Which can bring up another debate...a lot of CMS tools try to be 'design
management tools'...

But, sure, I could find your argument valid. Again, CMS is just a very broad
and vague term.

-Darrel

We dont need to bring Contribute - according to your way of thinking, DW
already is a CMS, because it has the template parameters feature

Templates = design/branding. That's not content.

Which can bring up another debate...a lot of CMS tools try to be 'design
management tools'...

But, sure, I could find your argument valid. Again, CMS is just a very broad
and vague term.

-Darrel

Templates = design/branding. That's not content.

DW template variables offer much of the functionality which I required, and
this functionality you labeled as CMS. Suddenly, it is not CMS :-). You just
keep the theory "if it already is in DW, it is not CMS". Template variables
(just like "my" variables) can be used to bring ANY text to webpages - it
doesnt matter if you call the text "content" or "branding" or anything else...

Templates = design/branding. That's not content.

DW template variables offer much of the functionality which I required, and
this functionality you labeled as CMS. Suddenly, it is not CMS :-). You just
keep the theory "if it already is in DW, it is not CMS". Template variables
(just like "my" variables) can be used to bring ANY text to webpages - it
doesnt matter if you call the text "content" or "branding" or anything else...

DW template variables offer much of the functionality which I required,
and
this functionality you labeled as CMS. Suddenly, it is not CMS :-).

You were wanting to replace CONTENT, while templaets are really more about
the branding elements and structure of the page.

Content vs. Structure, in otherwords.

A fair amount of CMS products attempt to handle the structure too. Most do
it poorly.

I can't speak for Adobe, but a lot of what's already in DW in terms of
templates and such is likely slowly going to disappear down the road. DW
came out at a time when most sites were static HTML and it was a nightmare
to manage it all...even bigger nightmare when site changes needed to be made
on every page. DW came along and that was its primary benefit: It was a
decent HTML editor, along with a pretty decent 'site management' toolset
that made it easier to maintain and publish all those static HTML files.

But, these days, that's less common, so I'm not sure Adobe would see that as
a primary goal of the toolset anymore. Again, just my hunch.

-Darrel

DW template variables offer much of the functionality which I required,
and
this functionality you labeled as CMS. Suddenly, it is not CMS :-).

You were wanting to replace CONTENT, while templaets are really more about
the branding elements and structure of the page.

Content vs. Structure, in otherwords.

A fair amount of CMS products attempt to handle the structure too. Most do
it poorly.

I can't speak for Adobe, but a lot of what's already in DW in terms of
templates and such is likely slowly going to disappear down the road. DW
came out at a time when most sites were static HTML and it was a nightmare
to manage it all...even bigger nightmare when site changes needed to be made
on every page. DW came along and that was its primary benefit: It was a
decent HTML editor, along with a pretty decent 'site management' toolset
that made it easier to maintain and publish all those static HTML files.

But, these days, that's less common, so I'm not sure Adobe would see that as
a primary goal of the toolset anymore. Again, just my hunch.

-Darrel