> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Nieuwenhuizen
> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 1998 10:20 AM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: your mup review
>
> > > try to pull the resulting documentation into my own setup, or to
> try
> > > to contribute to the tarball directly so that the result of
> running
> > > "make website" is my fancier page. if we were to go through with
> > >
> > I guess there are three approaches:
> >
> > 1 handmake a whole new website, copy and incorporate parts
> > of lily's website as it is 'now'.
> > 2 make a static frontend that is in effect a redo of all
> > 'index.html'
> > files that are now in the website, so that examples and doco
> > are always up to date
> > 3 make a new target 'fancywebsite'
> >
> > Somehow i've got the feeling that we should be doing either 1 or 3.
> > Option 2 seems to be a recipy for desaster, missing links etc.
> > I would hope we could do 3; obsolete webpages are almost as
> > bad as webpages full of broken links.
> >
>
> I am against extending the current website-in-tarball: it is a recipe
>
> Sure, but i didn't suggest that.
>
> for disaster, because we maintain the tarball, and Jeff must maintain
> the sources of the website. Moreover, it makes lilypond depend on
> even more programs. And I don't see what the point is including a
> bulky "fancy" website into to the source code.
>
> It has no point in itself; i only would want the fancy website
> to have all preformatted doco, and all rendered examples, so that
> you can always access them, albeit from the version that built
> the fancy website. It seemed to me that including all this stuff
> could automate that a bit easier, and it would be very easy for
> us to help out and make fixes. Anyway, this is all vapour, Jeff
> has to see what he likes best.
>
> Jan
