>> OK, I was asking because I have written a static command line HTML >> site generator that builds from HTML, Markdown, reStruturedText, >> Textile, Plain Text (.txt), and Microsoft Word (.docx). >> >> http://jmroper.com/blended > > I am not convinced that that changing our HTML generation is in our > best interest at this time. > > Design is almost entirely a question of CSS. I'd like to see some > serious effort at improving the CSS, since that it 99% of the > user-visible changes, and does not negatively impact the rest of our > code. Again, I suggest that you look at: > https://github.com/gperciva/lilypond-web-css > > If there is a need to style a particular element that currently > lacks an id= or class= name, I'd be quite happy to add that to our > existing texinfo and static site generation.
I think there are two separate issues. (1) Update the CSS to make the web page visually more pleasing. (2) Change the input syntax for the *web page* to something more common and more flexible than texinfo, e.g., markdown + templates. Both are reasonable IMHO, especially (1). The question is whether and how much of (2) we want. John, can you set up http://jmroper.com/lilypond/ with `blended' together with a README so that we can inspect the source code, CSS, etc., and the necessary steps to create it? I think only a direct comparison can answer our questions. Werner _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user