2006/12/5, John Mandereau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
There is already an unofficial wiki on http://lilypondwiki.tuxfamily.org/index.php?title=Main_Page
OK my bad. Though I thought I had indeed already seen there was a wiki somewhere, I wasn't able to find where it was (the fact is, I only tried with Google but I didn't think about looking for it on the mailing list archive).
It's easy to start a new wiki, a new documentation, a new whatever, but it's much harder to develop it on a long timescale.
As for me, I find wiki-based doc are a LOT easier for everyone to contribute, improve, propose, translate, and -most off all- gain easy and immediate access to every information they need. I've been spending hours, literally, using Google's "site search" function to look for some specific answers in Lily's current doc.
Before reinventing the wheel, we should first look for what already exists (or has existed).
I don't think Christophe Dang Ngoc Chan is pretending to reinvent the wheel (and neither am I, by the way). There is no need to blame newly-arrived users who want to help, no matter how unconvenient their ideas can be.
2) Johannes Schindelin has already developped a Mediawiki extension that can run LilyPond.
This is great. Looks like we get one more reason to use a wiki...
As Graham and others have already pointed out, it'd be very cumbersome for the user to look for documentation at a dozen of places. Computer music engraving, and thus LilyPond, are so specialized that cluttered and concurrent sources of informations would really be a pain. IMHO everyone should think twice about it before creating a new source of information.
The fact is, there's obviously something wrong with the way Lilypond documentation is given. A dozen of places, indeed : I use almost everyday : Lilypond snippet repository, Lily's official doc (not to mention that sometimes you need to switch to v8 or v9 doc to find something you need, then back again to v10 and so on), your site john.mandereau.free.fr to figure out what this word mean in French, etc., etc. IMHO, the most obvious lack isn't a lack of content, but a lack of intern links and "interface", so to say. Which means, and that's good news, that maybe the problem isn't so deep and so hard to correct. But maybe I'm reinventing the wheel here... :) The point is, precisely, all of us should not attempt to create a new source of information at all, but try to make existing Lilypond Documentation as easy and user- or contributer-friendly as, say, Wikipedia or anything else. That said, I'm glad it already exists (means the idea was'nt _that_ bad), though it is unfortunately a bit hard to find. I can't understand why it hasn't been a success. But maybe it would be worth trying to to put the footer links again. Can this be done easily, or does it means spending hours page-per-page ? And one last thing : both Christophe and I, I guess, and many others (that is, as far as they know there _is_ a wiki without having to read the entire mailing list archive) would be happy to join you and contribute to the existing wiki -unless you believe it is dead. Once again, nobody's trying to do as if nobody hasn't been doing anything here for ten years. So maybe a "Welcome on board, here's the todo-list" would be more appreciated than the way you take it John... Thank you. V.Villenave. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
