From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Christopher Allan Webber Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: On being web-friendly and why info must die Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2014 14:37:57 -0600 Message-ID: <877fy4h5r8.fsf@earlgrey.lan> References: <20141205123549.GA29331@thyrsus.com> <87mw72lyzs.fsf@earlgrey.lan> <20141205190925.GA5067@thyrsus.com> <871tod241v.fsf@ktab.red-bean.com> <20141205212111.GB7784@thyrsus.com> <87d27xn3jh.fsf@earlgrey.lan> <87vblpp1le.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1417898416 5871 80.91.229.3 (6 Dec 2014 20:40:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2014 20:40:16 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Dec 06 21:40:08 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XxM9A-0007MR-AX for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2014 21:40:08 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:55508 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XxM99-0004Dj-VN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2014 15:40:07 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48735) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XxM95-0004Bt-LC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2014 15:40:04 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XxM94-0007Yv-3t for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2014 15:40:03 -0500 Original-Received: from [2600:3c02::f03c:91ff:feae:cb51] (port=37539 helo=dustycloud.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XxM93-0007Y3-UI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2014 15:40:02 -0500 Original-Received: from earlgrey.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dustycloud.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1250D26648; Sat, 6 Dec 2014 15:39:59 -0500 (EST) In-reply-to: <87vblpp1le.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2600:3c02::f03c:91ff:feae:cb51 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:179213 Archived-At: David Kastrup writes: > Christopher Allan Webber writes: > >> Eric S. Raymond writes: >> >>> Karl Fogel : >>>> Actually, I think that might be *more* important than the exact choice >>>> of markup language. I hope we don't bikeshed.com the choice of markup >>>> language to death. ${ANYTHING_STANDARD_OR_ORG} is fine by me. >>> >>> Agreed. I may have given the impression that I'm more attached to >>> asciidoc per se than I am. It would be my first choice, but a reasoned >>> case could be made for a couple of the others. >> >> Okay, sorry also that I may be responding to that a bit more than >> anything. Getting GNU's web documentation improved is an important >> issue to me, and I really do want this to happen. >> >> I do agree that the importance of good web documentation is more >> important than info support, and if somehow we got tossed into the fork >> of needing to pick one or the other, I think nice looking web >> documentation is more important to the long-term health of GNU. > > So tell me what you consider wrong with the Texinfo-generated web > documentation of GNU LilyPond, arbitrary stuff like > . > What parts of the documentation are "not nice looking" to a degree that > would be bad for LilyPond's long-term health? I think it's a big step up from most Texinfo exports, and while I think it doesn't look as nice as a default sphinx export, it's proof that Texinfo could be improved to be attractive enough to web users who want to view the manual. I think you're upset with me also, but note that I supported a variety of solutions that kept a Texinfo output *and* got better HTML rendering, including improving Texinfo HTML theming itself! :) > I might add that we have several translations of all the web pages and > manuals which are tightly maintained (and some that are basically in > some left-behind state, not because of the amount of work Texinfo > presents since translators do not even need to touch the Texinfo parts > and, in contrast to some magic-cookie markup system like AsciiDoc are > not likely to break stuff just by copying things) but rather the amount > of work a good translation actually is. Most of our translators (and > documentation-focused developers) come from a Windows background and/or > do not contribute significantly to code. Sure, that's great!