> But the "website" doesn't have to be available as PDF or as info > documents if the manuals are. So I don't see anything speaking > against having a "website" that is developed using arbitrary > technologies that may even change every two years and having the > manuals in their traditional infrastructure and appearance, located > at their proper places inside or attached to the website.
Yes, the top-level page of lilypond.org might be maintained separately without affecting the documentation of lilypond itself. > I have to disagree here. The documentation inherently has to be > maintained by the developers but the website doesn't. Mhmm. We have to exactly define what the `website' is. Otherwise I fear that we soon have people who try to add documentation to the website... > Federico suggests that *the website* doesn't have to be available in > PDF or info format. He doesn't speak of manuals. This fine distinction was definitely not obvious in his first e-mail. Werner _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel