Re: New LilyPond website

[Federico Bruni]

Il giorno mar 29 nov 2016 alle 11:01, Johan Vromans 
<address@hidden> ha scritto:
> >  Additionally, it
> >  must be possible to build the documentation of lilypond with `make
> >  doc'.
>
> As discussed, this can be solved by separating the site and the
> documentation.

Sure. It seems weird that this must be repeated every time we discuss 
this subject...
The problem is that we currently have a weird (IMO) setup, in that the 
website is duplicated online, as you can find it on the server root 
(lilypond.org/, which is the result of 'make website', IIRC) and within 
the documentation (lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/web/index.html 
produced by 'make doc': this is because other manuals link to the 
website manual).

In order to remove website from the documentation, which is a good 
thing IMO, we should replace all the @rweb{} occurrences with regular 
URLs. This would mean that a local documentation would require Internet 
access to see a page of the website. But the advantages would be: no 
content duplication; possibility of using a different technology to 
generate the website, which is something I've been "advocating" for 
years. Even though unfortunately I don't have enough knowledge and time 
at the moment to try this endeavour.

> >  We then would need someone who is doing the job to set this up and
> >  convert the old stuff to the new one.  However, this isn't a trivial
> >  task and it probably takes a long time to get it right, so we need
> >  someone who has a lot of endurance and stamina...
>
> In other words, it will never happen.
>
> OTOH:
> 1. move the current site to lilypond-classic
> 2. move John's site in place
> 3. add a textline at the top to point visual impaired people to the 
> classic
> site
> 4. add a documentation link to documentation section of the classic 
> site
>
> Basically John's site is now a nice and shiny portal into the existing
> information. But it will give visitors a good impression. And I'm 
> confident
> that it will inspire contributors to enhance and improve it.

I like what John did (except automatically translated languages), but I 
agree with the objections made in this thread and also in the past 
about the technology (Wordpress).

What John did can be easily done with a static site generator, which 
would have many more chances to get accepted by LilyPond developers.