My css file is a proposed inclusion into the website. On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Carl Sorensen <c_soren...@byu.edu> wrote: > > > On 11/30/16 6:53 PM, "Paul" <p...@paulwmorris.com> 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 >> >>https://www.gnu.org/software/texinfo/ >> >>------------------- >>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 >>discussions. >> >>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 http://jmroper.com/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user