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

[David Kastrup]

John Roper <address@hidden> writes:

>> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 4:16 PM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>>> Urs Liska <address@hidden> writes:
>>>
>>> > Am 03.02.2017 um 18:20 schrieb Federico Bruni:
>>> >> Il giorno ven 3 feb 2017 alle 11:31, John Roper
>>> >> <address@hidden> 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