> But the "website" doesn't have to be available as PDF or as info
> documents if the manuals are. So I don't see anything speaking
> against having a "website" that is developed using arbitrary
> technologies that may even change every two years and having the
> manuals in their traditional infrastructure and appearance, located
> at their proper places inside or attached to the website.
Yes, the top-level page of lilypond.org might be maintained separately
without affecting the documentation of lilypond itself.
> I have to disagree here. The documentation inherently has to be
> maintained by the developers but the website doesn't.
Mhmm. We have to exactly define what the `website' is. Otherwise I
fear that we soon have people who try to add documentation to the
website...
> Federico suggests that *the website* doesn't have to be available in
> PDF or info format. He doesn't speak of manuals.
This fine distinction was definitely not obvious in his first e-mail.
Werner
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
