[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > try to pull the resulting documentation into my own setup, or to try
> > to contribute to the tarball directly so that the result of running
> > "make website" is my fancier page. if we were to go through with
> >
> I guess there are three approaches:
>
> 1 handmake a whole new website, copy and incorporate parts
> of lily's website as it is 'now'.
> 2 make a static frontend that is in effect a redo of all
> 'index.html'
> files that are now in the website, so that examples and doco
> are always up to date
> 3 make a new target 'fancywebsite'
>
> Somehow i've got the feeling that we should be doing either 1 or 3.
> Option 2 seems to be a recipy for desaster, missing links etc.
> I would hope we could do 3; obsolete webpages are almost as
> bad as webpages full of broken links.
>
I am against extending the current website-in-tarball: it is a recipe
for disaster, because we maintain the tarball, and Jeff must maintain
the sources of the website. Moreover, it makes lilypond depend on
even more programs. And I don't see what the point is including a
bulky "fancy" website into to the source code.
I think option 2 is the best, with the stipulation that the number of
links between the static and the dynamic website should be as low as
possible.
Option 2 does not constrain Jeff to the (possibly) awkward directory
structure of the LilyPond tarball.
> > registering lilypond.org as has been suggested in the past, what would
> The biggest problem is getting another nameserver, apparently. As
No: the biggest problem is getting a dependable and fully legal
webserver on the net for a reasonable price.
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** GNU LilyPond - The Music Typesetter
http://www.cs.uu.nl/people/hanwen/lilypond/index.html
