On 02/22/2017 02:14 PM, Graham Percival wrote:
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 12:23:06AM -0500, Paul wrote:
What if we separated the design and implementation steps? First, come up
with a design that just uses css and simple html (nothing fancy, no library
dependencies, etc.), one that offers
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 12:23:06AM -0500, Paul wrote:
> What if we separated the design and implementation steps? First, come up
> with a design that just uses css and simple html (nothing fancy, no library
> dependencies, etc.), one that offers responsive design for smaller screens,
> etc.
Forgot the Haunt static site generator link:
https://haunt.dthompson.us/
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
On 02/14/2017 01:50 AM, Graham Percival wrote:
If we switched from texinfo to a different static website generator,
I suspect it would be pelican, gitbook, or hugo -- existing
projects with thousands of users and a thriving developer
community.
Haunt is also interesting, from a minimizing
Il giorno mar 14 feb 2017 alle 7:50, Graham Percival
ha scritto:
I would be very surprised if LilyPond ever switched to Blended --
that would be increasing our technical debt, not reducing it. If
we switched from texinfo to a different static website generator,
I
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 05:04:07PM +0100, Federico Bruni wrote:
> Il giorno gio 9 feb 2017 alle 0:11, John Roper ha
> scritto:
> >Ok, you can see the most current version of my design on
> >http://jmroper.com/lilypond
> >
> >I am keeping the source for the website in
>
Il giorno gio 9 feb 2017 alle 0:11, John Roper
ha scritto:
Ok, you can see the most current version of my design on
http://jmroper.com/lilypond
I am keeping the source for the website in
https://github.com/johnroper100/LilyPond-Web-Redesign
Hi John
Before adding