[Sunny Thaper]

Really? Everytime? Can you make HTML only pages dynamic? Also, what is HTML-only? I have yet to run PHP client-side. ;-) To the search engine, it still gets the same HTML code, it doesn't care whether it was generated dynamically by a script or (generated dynamically, then) dumped from a file.

Give me an actual arguement better than "its better". That isn't an arguement, thats an opinion.

Alright, I guess I will get into this. We can all agree that Google is possibly one of the biggest if not the biggest search engine out there correct? Alright with that said, this is directly from Google's site. "# We are able to index dynamically generated pages. However, because our web crawler can easily overwhelm and crash sites serving dynamic content, we limit the amount of dynamic pages we index." Taken from http://www.google.com/webmasters/2.html#A1 and that means that with dynamic pages you will probably not be archieved correctly and completely. By "HTML Pages" I mean pages that do not use php in any form and have an extension of .htm or .html And also there are search engines out there that cannot browse dynamic pages like you stated.

I'll forgive you for not having looked at b2, but the criteria I use for selecting cms's (which in a way, b2/mt/etc are not, because they're really blogware, but thats not really up for discussion here) is total control over output. That means the template that it uses uses standards. Heck, I can make my b2 pages fully XHTML2 compliant, up to and including the mime-type. Can MT do that? Again, its nice that it creates static pages, but that has no bearing on website presentation NOR hits. People will visit your sites, and search engines will rank it the same regardless of whether html is generated dynamically or read from a file. HTML is something that exists independent of the device used to generate it!

Also this post wasn't about the best CMS system it was about a good one therefore trying to force B2 into this makes no sense. But since you threw it in, you making your B2 copy "fully XHTML2 compliant" lends me to believe you are wasting time because MT already comes scripted to be standards compliant without haveing to change anything.

Funny. Given complete control of the output, I could make RSS just as well as MT does. Heck, b2 comes with an RSS template, just like MT!

Nothing I can say for that except good for B2! But one thing that you keep making mention of is control of output... MT gives you complete control of output in everyway, templates, posts, and you can use external programs through MT's API.

Funny, b2 does the EXACT SAME THING! and, do you honestly think people will visit your robotics site because it is listed in a big list of sites that use their blog software? I sure haven't ever looked at the sites in those lists...

It's true no one will go through a list of pure urls but you did leave out one possibility for this which is actually my main point. The more links you have to your site the greater the chances are that a search engine will visit you hence if MT links to you and since it is quite a popular site you will get hit by search engines. And again, I am not debating that MT is better than b2 or vice versa, merely showing people that MT is a good tool.

That is all well and good. I agree well-formed, standardized HTML/CSS is a "Good Thing(TM)". What does that have to do with HOW the HTML is created? No matter how you chop it, the characters sent over the internet by MT and b2 (assuming same content, same template, etc etc) will be the EXACT SAME. You get NO benefit from static vs dynamic. You get NO benefit in search engine ranking, and no benefit in "validating better"

Again with the information above I have more than proved my point that having standards and a lack of dynamic content lends itself to be a good thing.