Re: What's the deal with info documentation images?

[David Kastrup]

Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:

> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 09:10:53PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:
>> 
>> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 11:50:13AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>> > I believe this only occurs in general.info, correct?  via macros
>> > in Documentation/common-macros.itexi ?
>> 
>> It occurs in lilypond.info.  Pretty much all introductory material.
>
> Ah, sorry.  I didn't realize that general.info was renamed to
> lilypond.info.  (I wanted it to be; I just didn't know it was
> already done. :)
>
>> That's not overly impressive.
> ...
>> This is a chaotic collection of FIXME items, without examples, and with
>> comments about "old web site" and "RSS" which have absolutely no sense
>> and value within the info documentation.
>
> Well, yes.  FIXMEs generally aren't impressive.  The FIXMEs will
> definitely be dealt with.  The images might be dealt with, if
> somebody deals with them.
>
> NB: lilypond.info is not a *change* from any previous info docs.
> lilypond.info is the info version of the (new) website.  It was
> never available in info before, so not having images isn't a
> question of breaking previously-working docs.

But previously (info "(lilypond)") lead to useful top-level information.
Currently it leads to a chaotic ensemble of FIXMEs, side remarks only
relevant for web pages, links to "stable" and "unstable" documentation
(nonsensical, since the info pages _are_ for just one version) that
don't even work, and the index commands don't work either since the
"top-level" document does not even _have_ an index, apparently.

It is quite difficult to actually find a working link to _any_ useful
documentation since half of the links don't work and the other half has
non-obvious names and a structure that has nothing to do with info.

I don't see _any_ advantage for the resulting info documentation at
all.  With regard to info, the previous arrangement was better in all
respects I can imagine.

I don't even think that the current situation is an improvement for HTML
documentation since it is _not_ appropriate for documenting one version
of Lilypond, but rather is the overall project webpage.  Which is
something completely different.

> I definitely *would* like to have pictures in lilypond.info, but
> I'm not going to do it myself.  Since you're interested in info,
> could you give it a shot?

A rock is not a replacement for a christmas tree even if you paint it
green.  What has been swapped in as "lilypond.info" makes no sense to
beat into something prettier.  It's in the wrong place to start with.

-- 
David Kastrup