So while talking during the entire article about being firm supporter of open source software, they choose a proprietary CMS. I'm disappointed by the W3C.
I have to say that I’m not sure why we would care about the license of their CMS. Their work is on standardization, whatever tool works well for them in their context is a good choice. What matters is their output, that standard documents are available publicly and are accessible by the majority.
The long term support of that CMS also matters. Exported HTML/CSS/JS files look more and more like binary blobs.
If you can't edit those pages in 10 years from now, without yet another expensive migration, then in retrospect it will rightfully seem like a poor decision.
Not really. As they explain, they took great care to make sure that the output (and thus saved data) is in line with W3C mission. Maybe migration might be needed in the future, but I see no reason why it would be any more expensive than migrating from WP (which is, btw, notorious for its storage schema choices).
