John Roper <johnroper...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 4:46 PM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: >> >>> John Roper <johnroper...@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>> >> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 4:16 PM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> Urs Liska <u...@openlilylib.org> writes: >>> >>> > >>> >>> > Separating website content from general documentation should >>> >>> > definitely be an option. >>> >>> >>> >>> What advantages do you expect from it? >>> > >>> > It is easier for users to write and it looks better. >>> >>> Who are "users"? What are we wanting them to write? >>> >>> > Blended exports human-readable files. >>> >>> We already export human-readable files in a host of formats including >>> PDF, HTML, plain text. >>> >>> > Look at the website. http://jmroper.com/blended/ >>> >>> My question probably was not clear enough. What tangible benefits for >>> LilyPond's website and its ongoing maintenance do we expect to reap from >>> a move to Blended as its content management system? > > Design update.
So this content management system prescribes a particular design, or makes implementing a particular design easier? > It looks better and attracts more users to the software. Last time I looked, users were not selecting their software by leafing through random web pages until they find a generally good-looking one and then being attracted to the software it advertises. At any rate, I wasn't really asking for advertising slogans here but rather concrete examples of stuff that would improve under such a change. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
