Mark, please run Tidy
http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett/tidy/ on your word doc and replace the code in the features list, I can't edit it or comment the way it is :)
To support convertion/cleanup, we should not restrict to one way, ie: inso filters, but support a service contract that can take input in one format, and produce output in another. This way you could use an external utility, and the CMS would not be aware of the implementation.
For file upload, the CMS can easily allow parameters for items such as, uploaded file storage, filesystem or database, the CR provides a way to access the content without worrying about where it is.
If we accept utpload of complete HTML docs, at least we sohuld extract the HTML title to use as the content revision title. There are also meta tags for author etc, that could be extracted if they exist.
The decision if revisions should go live immediatlye should not be made for hte user. It can be a package wide parameter, or like lars-blogger, ask the content editor, with the default set by the parameter. It is easy enough to offer this level of flexibility.
Do we have any real analysis that storing edits in the cr_revisions table will not scale? Has anyone tested this?
FOr folders, I think per-subsite is the best way to manage it. That is, each subsite has a cms root folder.
More later.
