lilypond-user
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: New LilyPond website


From: Graham Percival
Subject: Re: New LilyPond website
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 07:43:41 +0000
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)

On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 09:31:39PM -0500, John Roper wrote:
>    Ok, so what are the major things you would like from a new web redesign
>    (not including the docs)?
>    I know of:
>    Not reliant on JavaScript
>    Can be translated
>    Can be updated with each new build

There's a few non-negotiable points:
- no server-side processing, no "dynamic" website.  We're using
  a donated shared server.  Anything which increases our resource
  load or opens a security risk is a non-starter.
- can be created automatically from source.  (This is probably
  implied by your "can be updated with each new build" point, but
  better to be clear up-front.)

A few points which are highly encouraged, but which I suppose
could be negotated:
- should be relatively easy for newcomers to update.  Texinfo
  qualifies; I guess that HTML could qualify as long as there's
  a clear separation of content and styling.  Markdown would
  certainly satisfy this point, but I'm not confident that it can
  do everything we'd want.
- work within the existing system.  We have a lot of developers,
  and a lot of history.  There are certainly many ways that our
  processes can be improved, but we generally have reasons why
  things are the way they are.
- last December, I prepared a github repository specifically to
  address the case of somebody wanting to modify the website:
    https://github.com/gperciva/lilypond-web-css
  One person started working on this, and her first change has
  already been accepted to the LilyPond git repository.
  Unfortunately her progress has stalled a bit due to my health
  and various deadlines on Feb 4, but I hope to pick things up
  next week.

I strongly recommend that you take a look at that repository and
follow the steps outlined there.  As Werner and Urs recommended,
start with one small change -- "evolution, not revolution".  See
what kind of reaction that gets, let it go through the development
process, then repeat.

Cheers,
- Graham



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]