My css file is a proposed inclusion into the website.

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Carl Sorensen <> wrote:
> On 11/30/16 6:53 PM, "Paul" <> wrote:
>>On 11/30/2016 08:01 PM, John Roper wrote:
>>> Why is the website auto generated? What content is auto generated or
>>> is it just setup that way so that it is always built to the latest
>>> version for releases?
> By having the website auto generated, we never need to change the website
> when we have a new release.  We only need to change the website when we
> specifically want to change something about the website.  This
> dramatically minimizes the amount of time spent on maintaining the website.
>>Others can probably give better answers, as this is kind of second hand
>>based on past discussions... but the website is basically an appendage
>>to the (much larger) documentation, and, well let me quote
>>Texinfo is the official documentation format of the GNU project. It was
>>invented by Richard Stallman and Bob Chassell many years ago, loosely
>>based on Brian Reid's Scribe and other formatting languages of the time.
>>It is used by many non-GNU projects as well.
>>Texinfo uses a single source file to produce output in a number of
>>formats, both online and printed (dvi, html, info, pdf, xml, etc.). This
>>means that instead of writing different documents for online information
>>and another for a printed manual, you need write only one document. And
>>when the work is revised, you need revise only that one document. The
>>Texinfo system is well-integrated with GNU Emacs.
> One thing that is note mentioned in your quote is that texinfo separates
> semantics from appearance.  It is this precise separation that allows one
> to make big but consistent changes in the appearance of the website with
> changes in the CSS.  I'm a firm believer in the principle of separating
> semantics from presentation (and we do that with LilyPond, by the way,
> which is one of its strengths IMO).
>>So using texinfo to produce the documentation in info, pdf, html formats
>>etc. is then also used for the website.  I think that's the main reason,
>>but it's also tied up with supporting multiple translations of the
>>docs/website and how building the docs runs LilyPond to generate all of
>>the images for the examples, etc.  Also the argument is that having one
>>system for docs and website is simpler and makes maintenance easier,
>>especially with fewer contributors, etc.  That's the gist of past
>>I think there's a case for decoupling the website from the documentation
>>to a greater degree, e.g. as Federico argued earlier in the thread, but
>>based on past discussions I am not optimistic that this would go as far
>>as not using texinfo.  (But I've often wondered how important is it for
>>the content of the website to be available in pdf and info formats.)
> I don't think that there is any need for the website to be available in
> pdf and info.  But IMO there is a huge need for the website to
> presentation to be auto-generated from a semantic text description.  I
> don't care how beautiful the new website is, if it requires a webmaster to
> continually update the pages (including in all of the languages we have),
> it's not a step forward.  It would be setting up the website for bitrot.
>>Upgrading to the latest version of texi2any[0] and/or using Haunt would
>>help, but those are non-trivial endeavors.  The current setup certainly
>>introduces friction for website work, especially for those who are used
>>to working directly with HTML.
> I believe that we want to avoid working directly with HTML because of its
> mixture of semantics and presentation.
> Thanks,
> Carl

John Roper
Freelance Developer and Simulation Artist
Boston, MA USA

lilypond-user mailing list

Reply via email to