Re: Blended, static site generator [WAS: Re: New LilyPond website]

[David Kastrup]

Ok, since I am not apparently getting _any_ answers but just unrelated
buzzphrases pasted to the top of the quoted communication time and
again, I will briefly point out first how we communicate on this list.
One quotes the _pertinent_ part of the documentation first, then adds
one's answers usually in-line to the pertinent questions.

John Roper  writes:

>> On Feb 4, 2017 5:59 PM, "David Kastrup"  wrote:
>>
>>> John Roper  writes:
>>>
>>> >> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 4:46 PM, David Kastrup  wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> My question probably was not clear enough.  What tangible benefits for
>>> >>> LilyPond's website and its ongoing maintenance do we expect to reap from
>>> >>> a move to Blended as its content management system?
>>> >
>>> > Design update.
>>>
>>> So this content management system prescribes a particular design, or
>>> makes implementing a particular design easier?

Still unanswered.

>>> > It looks better and attracts more users to the software.
>>>
>>> Last time I looked, users were not selecting their software by leafing
>>> through random web pages until they find a generally good-looking one
>>> and then being attracted to the software it advertises.
>>>
>>> At any rate, I wasn't really asking for advertising slogans here but
>>> rather concrete examples of stuff that would improve under such a
>>> change.
>
> I wrote the Blended system to fit all of the requirements for
> redesigning the website (not documentation) for LilyPond. A nice side
> effect was that I can use it for other things.

Not addressing the request.

Could you give concrete examples of stuff that would be expected to
improve under a change of the content management system to Blended?

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Blended, static site generator [WAS: Re: New LilyPond website]

[John Roper]

I wrote the Blended system to fit all of the requirements for redesigning
the website (not documentation) for LilyPond. A nice side effect was that I
can use it for other things.

On Feb 4, 2017 5:59 PM, "David Kastrup"  wrote:

> John Roper  writes:
>
> >> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 4:46 PM, David Kastrup  wrote:
> >>
> >>> John Roper  writes:
> >>>
> >>> >> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 4:16 PM, David Kastrup  wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >>> Urs Liska  writes:
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> > Separating website content from general documentation should
> >>> >>> > definitely be an option.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> What advantages do you expect from it?
> >>> >
> >>> > It is easier for users to write and it looks better.
> >>>
> >>> Who are "users"?  What are we wanting them to write?
> >>>
> >>> > Blended exports human-readable files.
> >>>
> >>> We already export human-readable files in a host of formats including
> >>> PDF, HTML, plain text.
> >>>
> >>> > Look at the website. http://jmroper.com/blended/
> >>>
> >>> My question probably was not clear enough.  What tangible benefits for
> >>> LilyPond's website and its ongoing maintenance do we expect to reap
> from
> >>> a move to Blended as its content management system?
> >
> > Design update.
>
> So this content management system prescribes a particular design, or
> makes implementing a particular design easier?
>
> > It looks better and attracts more users to the software.
>
> Last time I looked, users were not selecting their software by leafing
> through random web pages until they find a generally good-looking one
> and then being attracted to the software it advertises.
>
> At any rate, I wasn't really asking for advertising slogans here but
> rather concrete examples of stuff that would improve under such a
> change.
>
> --
> David Kastrup
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Blended, static site generator [WAS: Re: New LilyPond website]

[David Kastrup]

John Roper  writes:

>> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 4:46 PM, David Kastrup  wrote:
>>
>>> John Roper  writes:
>>>
>>> >> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 4:16 PM, David Kastrup  wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Urs Liska  writes:
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > Separating website content from general documentation should
>>> >>> > definitely be an option.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> What advantages do you expect from it?
>>> >
>>> > It is easier for users to write and it looks better.
>>>
>>> Who are "users"?  What are we wanting them to write?
>>>
>>> > Blended exports human-readable files.
>>>
>>> We already export human-readable files in a host of formats including
>>> PDF, HTML, plain text.
>>>
>>> > Look at the website. http://jmroper.com/blended/
>>>
>>> My question probably was not clear enough.  What tangible benefits for
>>> LilyPond's website and its ongoing maintenance do we expect to reap from
>>> a move to Blended as its content management system?
>
> Design update.

So this content management system prescribes a particular design, or
makes implementing a particular design easier?

> It looks better and attracts more users to the software.

Last time I looked, users were not selecting their software by leafing
through random web pages until they find a generally good-looking one
and then being attracted to the software it advertises.

At any rate, I wasn't really asking for advertising slogans here but
rather concrete examples of stuff that would improve under such a
change.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Blended, static site generator [WAS: Re: New LilyPond website]

[David Kastrup]

Urs Liska  writes:

> Am 04.02.2017 um 22:16 schrieb David Kastrup:
>>> Separating website content from general documentation should definitely
>>> be an option.
>> What advantages do you expect from it?
>
> Breaking the technical tie between documentation and website makes it
> possible to update the (much smaller) website independently from the
> documentation system.

So what updates are expected to be done by who in consequence of such a
change?

> Basically I have the impression that we will never change the basic
> documentation system anymore because it's such a complex and
> historically grown system. And everytime someone comes to us proposing
> more-than-cosmetic changes they are eventually rejected because they
> are not compatible with that inflexible system.

So which more-than-cosmetic changes are we anticipating in consequence
of a change to the website generation?

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Blended, static site generator [WAS: Re: New LilyPond website]

[Urs Liska]

Am 04.02.2017 um 22:16 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Separating website content from general documentation should definitely
>> be an option.
> What advantages do you expect from it?

Breaking the technical tie between documentation and website makes it
possible to update the (much smaller) website independently from the
documentation system. Basically I have the impression that we will never
change the basic documentation system anymore because it's such a
complex and historically grown system. And everytime someone comes to us
proposing more-than-cosmetic changes they are eventually rejected
because they are not compatible with that inflexible system.

-- 
Urs Liska
https://openlilylib.org
http://lilypondblog.org

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Blended, static site generator [WAS: Re: New LilyPond website]

[John Roper]

Design update. It looks better and attracts more users to the software.

On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 4:46 PM, David Kastrup  wrote:

> John Roper  writes:
>
> >> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 4:16 PM, David Kastrup  wrote:
> >>
> >>> Urs Liska  writes:
> >>>
> >>> > Am 03.02.2017 um 18:20 schrieb Federico Bruni:
> >>> >> Il giorno ven 3 feb 2017 alle 11:31, John Roper
> >>> >>  ha scritto:
> >>> >>> 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 Is that versatile enough for you? Also,
> >>> >>> how do you handle translations?
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Yet another static site generator (SSG)? The purpose is simplicity?
> >>> >> (as compared to other SSG)
> >>> >> I don't have time to test it in the coming days.
> >>> >> The templates are simple HTML files with the added value of using
> >>> >> {{variables}}? I mean, you are not using any existing template
> system?
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>> > I can't comment on that right now.
> >>> >
> >>> >> ...
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Personally, I think that switching (for the website only!) from
> >>> >> texinfo to a static site generator based on markdown/html source
> files
> >>> >> and a simple template system would be wonderful.
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>> > +1
> >>> >
> >>> > Separating website content from general documentation should
> definitely
> >>> > be an option.
> >>>
> >>> What advantages do you expect from it?
> >
> > It is easier for users to write and it looks better.
>
> Who are "users"?  What are we wanting them to write?
>
> > Blended exports human-readable files.
>
> We already export human-readable files in a host of formats including
> PDF, HTML, plain text.
>
> > Look at the website. http://jmroper.com/blended/
>
> My question probably was not clear enough.  What tangible benefits for
> LilyPond's website and its ongoing maintenance do we expect to reap from
> a move to Blended as its content management system?
>
> --
> David Kastrup
>



-- 
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

Re: Blended, static site generator [WAS: Re: New LilyPond website]

[David Kastrup]

John Roper  writes:

>> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 4:16 PM, David Kastrup  wrote:
>>
>>> Urs Liska  writes:
>>>
>>> > Am 03.02.2017 um 18:20 schrieb Federico Bruni:
>>> >> Il giorno ven 3 feb 2017 alle 11:31, John Roper
>>> >>  ha scritto:
>>> >>> 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 Is that versatile enough for you? Also,
>>> >>> how do you handle translations?
>>> >>
>>> >> Yet another static site generator (SSG)? The purpose is simplicity?
>>> >> (as compared to other SSG)
>>> >> I don't have time to test it in the coming days.
>>> >> The templates are simple HTML files with the added value of using
>>> >> {{variables}}? I mean, you are not using any existing template system?
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > I can't comment on that right now.
>>> >
>>> >> ...
>>> >>
>>> >> Personally, I think that switching (for the website only!) from
>>> >> texinfo to a static site generator based on markdown/html source files
>>> >> and a simple template system would be wonderful.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > +1
>>> >
>>> > Separating website content from general documentation should definitely
>>> > be an option.
>>>
>>> What advantages do you expect from it?
>
> It is easier for users to write and it looks better.

Who are "users"?  What are we wanting them to write?

> Blended exports human-readable files.

We already export human-readable files in a host of formats including
PDF, HTML, plain text.

> Look at the website. http://jmroper.com/blended/

My question probably was not clear enough.  What tangible benefits for
LilyPond's website and its ongoing maintenance do we expect to reap from
a move to Blended as its content management system?

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Blended, static site generator [WAS: Re: New LilyPond website]

[Simon Albrecht]

A: Because it messes with the order in which people read text.
Q: Why is top-posting a bad thing?

Just sayin’… :-)

Best, Simon


On 04.02.2017 22:21, John Roper wrote:
It is easier for users to write and it looks better. Blended exports 
human-readable files. Look at the website. http://jmroper.com/blended/


On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 4:16 PM, David Kastrup > wrote:


Urs Liska > writes:

> Am 03.02.2017 um 18:20 schrieb Federico Bruni:
>> Il giorno ven 3 feb 2017 alle 11:31, John Roper
>> > ha
scritto:
>>> 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 Is that versatile enough for you? Also,
>>> how do you handle translations?
>>
>> Yet another static site generator (SSG)? The purpose is simplicity?
>> (as compared to other SSG)
>> I don't have time to test it in the coming days.
>> The templates are simple HTML files with the added value of using
>> {{variables}}? I mean, you are not using any existing template
system?
>>
>
> I can't comment on that right now.
>
>> ...
>>
>> Personally, I think that switching (for the website only!) from
>> texinfo to a static site generator based on markdown/html
source files
>> and a simple template system would be wonderful.
>>
>
> +1
>
> Separating website content from general documentation should
definitely
> be an option.

What advantages do you expect from it?

--
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org 
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user





--
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



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Blended, static site generator [WAS: Re: New LilyPond website]

[John Roper]

It is easier for users to write and it looks better. Blended exports
human-readable files. Look at the website. http://jmroper.com/blended/

On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 4:16 PM, David Kastrup  wrote:

> Urs Liska  writes:
>
> > Am 03.02.2017 um 18:20 schrieb Federico Bruni:
> >> Il giorno ven 3 feb 2017 alle 11:31, John Roper
> >>  ha scritto:
> >>> 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 Is that versatile enough for you? Also,
> >>> how do you handle translations?
> >>
> >> Yet another static site generator (SSG)? The purpose is simplicity?
> >> (as compared to other SSG)
> >> I don't have time to test it in the coming days.
> >> The templates are simple HTML files with the added value of using
> >> {{variables}}? I mean, you are not using any existing template system?
> >>
> >
> > I can't comment on that right now.
> >
> >> ...
> >>
> >> Personally, I think that switching (for the website only!) from
> >> texinfo to a static site generator based on markdown/html source files
> >> and a simple template system would be wonderful.
> >>
> >
> > +1
> >
> > Separating website content from general documentation should definitely
> > be an option.
>
> What advantages do you expect from it?
>
> --
> David Kastrup
>
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>



-- 
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

Re: Blended, static site generator [WAS: Re: New LilyPond website]

[David Kastrup]

Urs Liska  writes:

> Am 03.02.2017 um 18:20 schrieb Federico Bruni:
>> Il giorno ven 3 feb 2017 alle 11:31, John Roper
>>  ha scritto:
>>> 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 Is that versatile enough for you? Also,
>>> how do you handle translations?
>>
>> Yet another static site generator (SSG)? The purpose is simplicity?
>> (as compared to other SSG)
>> I don't have time to test it in the coming days.
>> The templates are simple HTML files with the added value of using
>> {{variables}}? I mean, you are not using any existing template system?
>>
>
> I can't comment on that right now.
>
>> ...
>>
>> Personally, I think that switching (for the website only!) from
>> texinfo to a static site generator based on markdown/html source files
>> and a simple template system would be wonderful.
>>
>
> +1
>
> Separating website content from general documentation should definitely
> be an option.

What advantages do you expect from it?

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Blended, static site generator [WAS: Re: New LilyPond website]

[John Roper]

Blended now has support for *eleven* markup languages and it has a new
website!

http://jmroper.com/blended/

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 2:39 PM, John Roper  wrote:

> There is a template system. You setup page templates and Blended inserts
> the text from any file into that template.
>
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Urs Liska  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Am 03.02.2017 um 18:20 schrieb Federico Bruni:
>> > Il giorno ven 3 feb 2017 alle 11:31, John Roper
>> >  ha scritto:
>> >> 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 Is that versatile enough for you? Also,
>> >> how do you handle translations?
>> >
>> > Yet another static site generator (SSG)? The purpose is simplicity?
>> > (as compared to other SSG)
>> > I don't have time to test it in the coming days.
>> > The templates are simple HTML files with the added value of using
>> > {{variables}}? I mean, you are not using any existing template system?
>> >
>>
>> I can't comment on that right now.
>>
>> > ...
>> >
>> > Personally, I think that switching (for the website only!) from
>> > texinfo to a static site generator based on markdown/html source files
>> > and a simple template system would be wonderful.
>> >
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Separating website content from general documentation should definitely
>> be an option.
>> Urs
>>
>> ___
>> lilypond-user mailing list
>> lilypond-user@gnu.org
>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>>
>
>
>
> --
> John Roper
> Freelance Developer and Simulation Artist
> Boston, MA USA
> http://jmroper.com/
>



-- 
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

Re: Blended, static site generator [WAS: Re: New LilyPond website]

[John Roper]

There is a template system. You setup page templates and Blended inserts
the text from any file into that template.

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Urs Liska  wrote:

>
>
> Am 03.02.2017 um 18:20 schrieb Federico Bruni:
> > Il giorno ven 3 feb 2017 alle 11:31, John Roper
> >  ha scritto:
> >> 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 Is that versatile enough for you? Also,
> >> how do you handle translations?
> >
> > Yet another static site generator (SSG)? The purpose is simplicity?
> > (as compared to other SSG)
> > I don't have time to test it in the coming days.
> > The templates are simple HTML files with the added value of using
> > {{variables}}? I mean, you are not using any existing template system?
> >
>
> I can't comment on that right now.
>
> > ...
> >
> > Personally, I think that switching (for the website only!) from
> > texinfo to a static site generator based on markdown/html source files
> > and a simple template system would be wonderful.
> >
>
> +1
>
> Separating website content from general documentation should definitely
> be an option.
> Urs
>
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>



-- 
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

Re: Blended, static site generator [WAS: Re: New LilyPond website]

[Urs Liska]

Am 03.02.2017 um 18:20 schrieb Federico Bruni:
> Il giorno ven 3 feb 2017 alle 11:31, John Roper
>  ha scritto:
>> 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 Is that versatile enough for you? Also,
>> how do you handle translations?
>
> Yet another static site generator (SSG)? The purpose is simplicity?
> (as compared to other SSG)
> I don't have time to test it in the coming days.
> The templates are simple HTML files with the added value of using
> {{variables}}? I mean, you are not using any existing template system?
>

I can't comment on that right now.

> ...
>
> Personally, I think that switching (for the website only!) from
> texinfo to a static site generator based on markdown/html source files
> and a simple template system would be wonderful.
>

+1

Separating website content from general documentation should definitely
be an option.
Urs

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user