Storage depends on contributor count, publication frequency and query needs. JSON fits a moderate Git-managed library; databases fit frequent writes; a CMS helps multiple editors.
The useful answer depends on the purpose of the page, the people allowed to edit it and the cost of an error. A reliable workflow separates editorial decisions, technical delivery and final verification instead of hiding all three inside one automated operation.
The decision to make first
Use the simplest system that meets the real need. Identify authors, approvers, content volume, rights and workflow requirements.
A practical method
- Map authors, reviewers and publication frequency.
- List filters and content relationships.
- Assess backup, restore and history.
- Measure deployment and security constraints.
- Pilot with a real batch before migration.
Checks before publishing
- The source of truth is explicit and can be restored.
- URLs, dates and visible claims match the delivered page.
- A human reviewer can reproduce the check without a hidden service.
The main pitfall
Running CMS, SQL and files without a priority rule creates divergence between pages, sitemap and RSS.
Recommended next step
For a stable Git-managed FAQ, start with JSON and reconsider when contributor or workflow needs change.
Compare the three models on the same need
A team publishes weekly in two languages and reviews copy before release. It tries adding, correcting, retiring and fully exporting content in each proposed system. It measures effort, checks needed and recovery options.
A small JSON catalogue can remain simple with a controlled workflow; a database may help when relationships and operations grow; a CMS can ease approvals. None removes the need to define roles, backups and content quality.