lilypond-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GOP: new website

From: John Mandereau
Subject: Re: GOP: new website
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 21:18:54 +0100 
Le jeudi 25 décembre 2008 à 21:03 -0800, Graham Percival a écrit :
> I'm trying to decide how to build the new website.  In particular,
> I'd like to be able to create pdfs as well as the html.

Good idea!


> I currently see four options:
> 1)  Build the website with texinfo and texi2html.  With sufficient
> stylesheets and texi2html hacking, I think this is /possible/, but
> I don't know how much appetite there is for this.  I would only
> touch the content, not presentation, of course.

The HTML used in current website is quite simple, it even doesn't have
<html> and <head> elements, it won't be hard to generate it from
texi2html.  LilyPond contributors are already familiar with Texinfo, so
it's not much of a trouble for writers either.  I second Werner on going
for this way.


> 3)  Use one of these newfangled langauges like SGML or docbook or
> whatever to produce pdf and html.  I really don't like the idea of
> adding another language to the project, though.

Agreed, and Docbook developers even reported on bug-texinfo or
help-texinfo list they'd like to convert Docbook to Texinfo in order to
get decent PDF output(!).


> 4)  Abandon the "complete website as pdf" idea and just give
> people a tarball of the website for off-online browsing.

This is the easiest to do of course, but even this require a little
work: creating an "offline" option to avoid stripping HTML and graphics
file name extensions.  It's a long time I've been thinking about the
possibility to make the website browsable offline, I'm willing to do it
in the coming weeks.


> Particular parts of the website I'd like to have available
> offline:
> - the crash course and short tour in Introduction.
> - the essay about typesetting in the About
> - the FAQ, publication list, acknowledgements
> - getting help

I think the FAQ needn't be in PDF; in other words I'll never rewrite it
in Texinfo myself.  Other parts you mentioned should be available in PDF
IMO.


>   And to be
> honest, it's not like the pdfs that texinfo produces are fantastic
> examples of typesetting, either.

Certainly, but they are better than many other alternatives.  I've heard
of some Texinfo->LaTeX converter, but I've never tested it.

Cheers,
John
reply via email to
[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]