An IPFS website CMS workflow: edit privately, publish static releases
Design a content workflow that separates authoring, previews, approvals, static output, and IPFS publication without exposing the CMS to every visitor.
IPFS Website CMS / EDITORIAL WORKFLOWS
A CMS can power the editorial side while readers receive a lightweight static website. Keep the boundary between private work and public artifacts explicit.
Define the title, slug, excerpt, body, images, alt text, dates, categories, and related topics your editors need. Validate required fields before generating the website. Give editors understandable errors rather than an unexplained failed deployment. Keep taxonomies purposeful: a category should organize a real subject, and a tag archive should help a reader find relevant material.
Separate saved, approved, built, retained, and publicly available states. A CMS save event should not silently imply that the final release has passed testing. Record the revision that produced each root CID and the person or process that approved publication. Test media, archives, metadata, and feeds together before changing the public entry point.
Technical reference: Decap CMS architecture overview. Review the relevant configuration before applying it to a production environment.
COMMON QUESTIONS
Not in this architecture. The CMS handles authoring and access control separately; IPFS distributes the approved static output.
It can when the chosen API permits it, but that creates an ongoing dependency on the CMS service. Describe that dependency rather than claiming a fully self-contained release.
FIELD GUIDES
Design a content workflow that separates authoring, previews, approvals, static output, and IPFS publication without exposing the CMS to every visitor.
Evaluate generated sites by their actual files, dependencies, accessibility, metadata, and release behavior—not by a convincing preview.