Il giorno mar 29 nov 2016 alle 11:01, Johan Vromans
<jvrom...@squirrel.nl> ha scritto:
Additionally, it
must be possible to build the documentation of lilypond with `make
doc'.
As discussed, this can be solved by separating the site and the
documentation.
Sure. It seems weird that this must be repeated every time we discuss
this subject...
The problem is that we currently have a weird (IMO) setup, in that the
website is duplicated online, as you can find it on the server root
(lilypond.org/, which is the result of 'make website', IIRC) and within
the documentation (lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/web/index.html
produced by 'make doc': this is because other manuals link to the
website manual).
In order to remove website from the documentation, which is a good
thing IMO, we should replace all the @rweb{} occurrences with regular
URLs. This would mean that a local documentation would require Internet
access to see a page of the website. But the advantages would be: no
content duplication; possibility of using a different technology to
generate the website, which is something I've been "advocating" for
years. Even though unfortunately I don't have enough knowledge and time
at the moment to try this endeavour.
We then would need someone who is doing the job to set this up and
convert the old stuff to the new one. However, this isn't a trivial
task and it probably takes a long time to get it right, so we need
someone who has a lot of endurance and stamina...
In other words, it will never happen.
OTOH:
1. move the current site to lilypond-classic
2. move John's site in place
3. add a textline at the top to point visual impaired people to the
classic
site
4. add a documentation link to documentation section of the classic
site
Basically John's site is now a nice and shiny portal into the existing
information. But it will give visitors a good impression. And I'm
confident
that it will inspire contributors to enhance and improve it.
I like what John did (except automatically translated languages), but I
agree with the objections made in this thread and also in the past
about the technology (Wordpress).
What John did can be easily done with a static site generator, which
would have many more chances to get accepted by LilyPond developers.
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
