On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Jan Nieuwenhuizen <jann...@gnu.org> wrote:
>> My bad, I'd only veto for lilypond/org/notation.html and all other >> non-base-website docs alike. I technically have nothing against putting >> the base website at the root. > > Han-Wen? > > The technical reasons for using web/ and doc/v2.xx are: > - easier rsyncing, moving, verifying > - clean namespace -- currently we have quite some other > things at the root. it's easy to get collisions, we > need to really think this through very well before > going forward with this Can't we have the directory structure internally with /web/ , /download/ what have you, and use some serverside URL rewriting to make translate /foo/ into /web/foo/ ? Does apache have mechanisms for rewriting the serving path without rewriting the URL that appears in browser window? If not, I think it makes sense to keep the /web/ prefix, so we keep have other subsections of the web later. Consider, for example, a hypotheticial http://lilypond.org/lsr/ Also, do we want to keep old versions of the website (now that it has been tied to the lilypond version?) online? -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - han...@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
