Re: On being web-friendly and why info must die

[David Kastrup]

Christopher Allan Webber <address@hidden> writes:

> David Kastrup writes:
>
>> Christopher Allan Webber <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> Eric S. Raymond writes:
>>>
>>>> Karl Fogel <address@hidden>:
>>>>> Actually, I think that might be *more* important than the exact choice
>>>>> of markup language.  I hope we don't bikeshed.com the choice of markup
>>>>> language to death.  ${ANYTHING_STANDARD_OR_ORG} is fine by me.
>>>>
>>>> Agreed.  I may have given the impression that I'm more attached to
>>>> asciidoc per se than I am. It would be my first choice, but a reasoned
>>>> case could be made for a couple of the others.
>>>
>>> Okay, sorry also that I may be responding to that a bit more than
>>> anything.  Getting GNU's web documentation improved is an important
>>> issue to me, and I really do want this to happen.
>>>
>>> I do agree that the importance of good web documentation is more
>>> important than info support, and if somehow we got tossed into the fork
>>> of needing to pick one or the other, I think nice looking web
>>> documentation is more important to the long-term health of GNU.
>>
>> So tell me what you consider wrong with the Texinfo-generated web
>> documentation of GNU LilyPond, arbitrary stuff like
>> <URL:http://www.lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/guitar>.
>> What parts of the documentation are "not nice looking" to a degree that
>> would be bad for LilyPond's long-term health?
>
> I think it's a big step up from most Texinfo exports, and while I think
> it doesn't look as nice as a default sphinx export, it's proof that
> Texinfo could be improved to be attractive enough to web users who want
> to view the manual.

Well yes, the question is what one can do to make the typical
Texinfo-generated manuals and pages be more palatable.  Of course, the
amount of images in them is up to the manual writers, but it might
become easier to generate them.

-- 
David Kastrup