Re: Feedback wanted: syntax highlighting in the LilyPond documentation

[Aaron Hill]

On 2022-01-04 1:42 pm, Jean Abou Samra wrote:
> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.en.html
> [ . . . ]
> But I'm probably fretting for something that is
> very easy in the end.

The code Lilypond's site would use would be entirely homegrown, licensed 
under GPL.  Not sure there is anything here to worry unless we determine 
there is an external dependency that is required.


> If we add a toggle for switching highlighting on and
> off, then the next question will of course be what
> the default should be. Without surprise, I would prefer
> if it were on by default, but I wouldn't mind the
> other way.

And honestly, I like the default being on, simply because it advertises 
the new feature.  If folks load up the docs and see the familiar black 
and white, they might not know to look for the option to enable 
highlighting.

Perhaps a good strategy would be to initially enable the feature for an 
entire release cycle.  This gets folks using it and providing feedback.  
Most of the discussion so far has been limited in scope so it is hard to 
know if the system works well over the entire manual and for day-to-day 
usage.

I would not be surprised if some creative folks on the list end up 
creating new color schemes to be included as options aside from the 
default.  A dark mode scheme is almost inevitable.


> Are you sure about that? This is one page that drew
> my attention:
>
> https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/30739/do-the-gdpr-and-cookie-law-regulations-apply-to-localstorage

One of the posts a little further down talks about shopping carts.  The 
way I read this is that when a user is performing an action where 
something being saved is reasonably expected as part of the 
functionality, there is no need to ask permission.  The question we 
would have is whether selecting a color scheme carries an expectation 
that it should persist.


-- Aaron Hill