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

[David Kastrup]

John Roper <address@hidden> writes:

>> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 4:46 PM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>>> John Roper <address@hidden> writes:
>>>
>>> >> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 4:16 PM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Urs Liska <address@hidden> 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