Re: Potential improvements to the homepage?

[David Kastrup]

David Pirotte <address@hidden> writes:

> Hello David,
>
>> > I was talking about the source code of these web sites,  
>
>> The "source code of these web sites" is also written in Texinfo.
>
> Nope, Guile, Guix and the other examples I gave all have their
> web-site source code
> written in scheme.
>
>> That's because Guile does not have its web site written in Texinfo.
>> LilyPond does.
>
> Guile's web-pages were not using sxml before the rewrite either, and
> it is in the perspective of a redesign/rewrite that I suggested to
> consider scheme/sxml, and in that respect, it does not matter actual
> pages are written in texinfo.
>
> But I understand you and most people who answered my suggestion
> believe it is not a good approach for Lilypond web pages, especially
> in regards of the translation in multiple languages.
>
> David
>
> ps:   for info, guile has a  'Texinfo Processing' module and manual entry

Sigh.  The web pages of LilyPond are written and translated by humans,
not some program.  They are written in Texinfo format, and an automated
process generates HTML (and other formats) from them.

Whatever language/system the web pages are supposed to be written in in
future, it will need to be managed by authors and translators of the
content.

A proposal where the questions of "who is going to do or manage the
ongoing work required to be done by various different people in future"
have no answer or a plan how to arrive at such answers is going to be
problematic.

This does not as much mean "$x is not a good approach for LilyPond web
pages" as it does that the current approach for LilyPond web pages
solves a number of problems that will still be pertinent when trying
other approaches.  If a proposal does not even try to address how that
could be done, that does not exactly provide promising prospects for
actually solving all of those problems once the project/web page is in
flight.

-- 
David Kastrup