[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: non web_version of web.texi ?

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: non web_version of web.texi ?
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2020 01:52:58 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Graham Percival <> writes:

> On Sun, Jul 05, 2020 at 10:38:50PM +0200, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
>> is there any other function of web.texi besides producing the
>> website? I would like to get rid of the "-D web_version"
>> distinction, that is making web_version always be true for the web
>> document. Is there any reason to not do this?
> IIRC there was an argument that all lilypond docs should be
> available via info(1) and pdfs, and some parts of the website
> qualified as "docs".  The general intro to our manuals, for
> example.  Related commits:
> ac3d9e3f836a56977ca09f89e7ffcfc189711743
> a060fc94b65dbc25a7e1ec20f2f79a58036a2546
> (general.texi was later renamed to web.texi)
> The argument on the mailing list was probably in 2009, although
> just possibly it was late 2008 instead.  I think that my original
> idea was to just produce the html, while the person(s) who wanted
> to have all docs available offline where you, Jan, John Mandereau,
> and/or David Kastrup.  (It was definitely an emacs user!)

I am frequently using the Info files to look up stuff in the index
and/or do full text searches as it so much more convenient and faster
than messing with the HTML.  Once I have found the stuff, I tend to do a
web search for some longer phrase in order to point people to the
corresponding online HTML.

Emacs' LilyPond mode is pretty disgraceful compared to what Frescobaldi
does (even though I taught it a better Midi input mode), so the argument
that the Info files are a natural companion to Emacs' editing modes
really does not have all that much weight: people would not change to
using Emacs just for working with LilyPond.

> A few months later, I was glad that I lost that argument, as it
> provided a "starting point" to the dozen or so pdf manuals.
> I'm not aware of the current state & usage of lilypond docs, so I
> have no position on whether it's worth keeping the "full offline
> capability".  If there's a serious desire to make web.texi
> HTML-only, then it might even be worth adding that to the tarball
> of pdfs (if those are still being distributed).
> Cheers,
> - Graham

David Kastrup

reply via email to

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