Re: New website: what's the sense of '(main)'?

[Graham Percival]

On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 03:07:57AM +0100, John Mandereau wrote:
> Le dimanche 03 janvier 2010 à 01:52 +0000, Graham Percival a écrit :
> > When you're clicked through a few options in a chapter, you've
> > been staring at the highlighted second-level TOC changing.  It's
> > not obvious how to get back to the first page, if you want to see
> > the overview of pages in that chapter again.  This is a problem in
> > the old website.
> 
> There is a quite explicit path with links at the bottom of each page,

If it's confusing, it's confusing.

> > It might be obvious to some people with a CS background and
> > knowledge of trees, but I remember being confused by this more
> > than 5 years ago.  And if I can get confused, I'm certain that
> > other people can get confused.
> 
> This is a good point, but putting this even on each chapter page
> (Introduction, Download etc.), and at the left of entries of lower level
> is confusing too, so this IMHO this "(main)" should be removed.

How is it confusing?  The first time somebody clicks on it,
they'll discover what it does.

> > I'll entertain a renaming (if introduction wasn't already taken,
> > we could use that; I suppose we could even duplicate the
> > chapter-name instead of (main)).
> 
> Yes, this "(main)" is ugly, the actual name of the chapter should be
> used.

Go ahead and push a patch (as long as git still compiles).

> Anyway, this "(main)" is un-i18n-able,

WTF?!  It's a string in perl.  You've already dumped 368 lines of
translations into lilypond-texi2html.pl.  Adding another 6 lines
for the translations of (main) can't be hard!

Now, I still don't think that we should have all those strings
directly in lilypond-texi2html.pl, but that's a separate issue.


Oh, and if you use the name of the chapter (via
node->section->up->name or however it's done in perl), then it
*will* be translated automatically -- it would be displayed as
whatever the @chapter is called in the translated .itexi file.

> so I'll remove it (or comment it out)

No.


- Graham