I'd say we support all of them except for number 9 where he says you must have control over the url structure.
In mojoportal you have control over the urls though good urls are suggested by default you can override them. But the urls system was not designed to have extra segments in them that simulate folders or site structure.
So for example on this site we have a page about ecommerce configuration with the url
but it would not be good to add an extra segment in the url like
The extra segment might be tempting because its an article under the Installation section of the site but with a CMS you are free to move pages around. If the hierarchy of pages is built into the url with segments then you have a real SEO problem when you move a page, because urls are not really supposed to change. I mean you can solve the problem with a 301 redirect, but you can avoid any problem at all by not changing the url when you move a page within the site.
I would disagree with anyone who says that the longer Url
has better SEO than the shorter one:
So the idea that you must be free to add segments into the structure of the url as a foundation of SEO is debateable in my opinion. I'm not 100% sure that by structure he means the ability to add segments, but it does sound like that is what he means.
Its also possible to use extensionless Urls without the .aspx, but to do so requires plugins for the IIS to make requests without that extension handled by .NET. whereas .aspx is handled by .NET by default.
So we have the essentials covered very well, friendly urls, google site maps, meta descripts/keywords, and even cannonical urls are built into mojoPortal already, even though it just came out in February.
I think our SEO story is excellent. The most important thing is good content with a good title and having content structured with appropriate headings, and an url that also conveys the title or content. Its working fine for my sites.