>> 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
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
