Re: non web_version of web.texi ?
Am Montag, den 06.07.2020, 18:48 -0700 schrieb Graham Percival:
> On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 11:26:46AM +0200, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> > Just for clarity, I'm not against having web.texi as an info file or
> > PDF file. It's just that I want to get rid of the special casing of
> > web_version, which (when switched) off produces a doc with less links.
>
> Ah sorry, it's been a while. It looks like web_version is
> essentially:
>
> if web_version
> LilyPond looks amazing, for example
> @uref{examples.html#Classical-Music, classical music}
> @uref{examples.html#Complex-Notation, complex notation},
> else
> LilyPond looks amazing and can display classical music.
> endif
>
>
> Do the @uref lines look reasonable in info and pdf output?
> It's possible that I just assumed that it wouldn't work, and added
> an unnecessary "fix".
> (Come to think of it, it might be possible to replace those lines
> with simple @ref{}s.)
>
>
> if web_version
> @divIf{homepage-sidebar}
> ... links to download and manuals page...
>
> @html
>... some kind of javascript...
> @end html
>
> endif
I think replacing the above instances with @ifhtml is fine (even though
the explicit links are probably broken in web-big-page, but that's a
different story).
The situation is less clear for @macro ifWebLinks and downloads as well
as links to the manuals: Without web_version, this links to the files
for that VERSION which is correct for local builds and more importantly
for the uploaded documentation from GUB. With web_version, it links to
the current VERSION_STABLE which is the desirable outcome for the
public website. I don't see a solution for this.
Jonas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: non web_version of web.texi ?
On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 11:26:46AM +0200, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> Just for clarity, I'm not against having web.texi as an info file or
> PDF file. It's just that I want to get rid of the special casing of
> web_version, which (when switched) off produces a doc with less links.
Ah sorry, it's been a while. It looks like web_version is
essentially:
if web_version
LilyPond looks amazing, for example
@uref{examples.html#Classical-Music, classical music}
@uref{examples.html#Complex-Notation, complex notation},
else
LilyPond looks amazing and can display classical music.
endif
Do the @uref lines look reasonable in info and pdf output?
It's possible that I just assumed that it wouldn't work, and added
an unnecessary "fix".
(Come to think of it, it might be possible to replace those lines
with simple @ref{}s.)
if web_version
@divIf{homepage-sidebar}
... links to download and manuals page...
@html
... some kind of javascript...
@end html
endif
I added the latter in e343a09657b87891893a4cca13e6c1a3d775f34f,
probably because the pdf looked weird, but I can't recall the
exact circumstances. Unfortunately the commit messages don't
explain much, as you've probably noticed. :(
Sorry I couldn't help more,
- Graham
Re: non web_version of web.texi ?
On Sun, Jul 5, 2020 at 11:54 PM Graham Percival wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 05, 2020 at 10:38:50PM +0200, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > > is there any other function of web.texi besides producing the > > lilypond.org website? I would like to get rid of the "-D web_version" > > distinction, that is making web_version always be true for the web > > document. Is there any reason to not do this? > > IIRC there was an argument that all lilypond docs should be > available via info(1) and pdfs, and some parts of the website > qualified as "docs". The general intro to our manuals, for > example. Related commits: > ac3d9e3f836a56977ca09f89e7ffcfc189711743 > a060fc94b65dbc25a7e1ec20f2f79a58036a2546 > (general.texi was later renamed to web.texi) > > The argument on the mailing list was probably in 2009, although > just possibly it was late 2008 instead. I think that my original > idea was to just produce the html, while the person(s) who wanted > to have all docs available offline where you, Jan, John Mandereau, > and/or David Kastrup. (It was definitely an emacs user!) > A few months later, I was glad that I lost that argument, as it > provided a "starting point" to the dozen or so pdf manuals. > > I'm not aware of the current state & usage of lilypond docs, so I > have no position on whether it's worth keeping the "full offline > capability". If there's a serious desire to make web.texi > HTML-only, then it might even be worth adding that to the tarball > of pdfs (if those are still being distributed). Just for clarity, I'm not against having web.texi as an info file or PDF file. It's just that I want to get rid of the special casing of web_version, which (when switched) off produces a doc with less links. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - hanw...@gmail.com - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
Re: non web_version of web.texi ?
Graham Percival writes: > On Sun, Jul 05, 2020 at 10:38:50PM +0200, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: >> is there any other function of web.texi besides producing the >> lilypond.org website? I would like to get rid of the "-D web_version" >> distinction, that is making web_version always be true for the web >> document. Is there any reason to not do this? > > IIRC there was an argument that all lilypond docs should be > available via info(1) and pdfs, and some parts of the website > qualified as "docs". The general intro to our manuals, for > example. Related commits: > ac3d9e3f836a56977ca09f89e7ffcfc189711743 > a060fc94b65dbc25a7e1ec20f2f79a58036a2546 > (general.texi was later renamed to web.texi) > > The argument on the mailing list was probably in 2009, although > just possibly it was late 2008 instead. I think that my original > idea was to just produce the html, while the person(s) who wanted > to have all docs available offline where you, Jan, John Mandereau, > and/or David Kastrup. (It was definitely an emacs user!) I am frequently using the Info files to look up stuff in the index and/or do full text searches as it so much more convenient and faster than messing with the HTML. Once I have found the stuff, I tend to do a web search for some longer phrase in order to point people to the corresponding online HTML. Emacs' LilyPond mode is pretty disgraceful compared to what Frescobaldi does (even though I taught it a better Midi input mode), so the argument that the Info files are a natural companion to Emacs' editing modes really does not have all that much weight: people would not change to using Emacs just for working with LilyPond. > A few months later, I was glad that I lost that argument, as it > provided a "starting point" to the dozen or so pdf manuals. > > I'm not aware of the current state & usage of lilypond docs, so I > have no position on whether it's worth keeping the "full offline > capability". If there's a serious desire to make web.texi > HTML-only, then it might even be worth adding that to the tarball > of pdfs (if those are still being distributed). > > Cheers, > - Graham > > -- David Kastrup
Re: non web_version of web.texi ?
On Sun, Jul 05, 2020 at 10:38:50PM +0200, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > is there any other function of web.texi besides producing the > lilypond.org website? I would like to get rid of the "-D web_version" > distinction, that is making web_version always be true for the web > document. Is there any reason to not do this? IIRC there was an argument that all lilypond docs should be available via info(1) and pdfs, and some parts of the website qualified as "docs". The general intro to our manuals, for example. Related commits: ac3d9e3f836a56977ca09f89e7ffcfc189711743 a060fc94b65dbc25a7e1ec20f2f79a58036a2546 (general.texi was later renamed to web.texi) The argument on the mailing list was probably in 2009, although just possibly it was late 2008 instead. I think that my original idea was to just produce the html, while the person(s) who wanted to have all docs available offline where you, Jan, John Mandereau, and/or David Kastrup. (It was definitely an emacs user!) A few months later, I was glad that I lost that argument, as it provided a "starting point" to the dozen or so pdf manuals. I'm not aware of the current state & usage of lilypond docs, so I have no position on whether it's worth keeping the "full offline capability". If there's a serious desire to make web.texi HTML-only, then it might even be worth adding that to the tarball of pdfs (if those are still being distributed). Cheers, - Graham
non web_version of web.texi ?
Hi there, is there any other function of web.texi besides producing the lilypond.org website? I would like to get rid of the "-D web_version" distinction, that is making web_version always be true for the web document. Is there any reason to not do this? -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - hanw...@gmail.com - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
