>> * For translators, having the same anchor name as in the original
>> document helps a lot in translation. And vice versa, it helps
>> maintainers who don't speak the particular language to still do
>> various maintenance tasks easier.
>
> I do not think that this is such a good reason to change the @anchor
> command, [...]
Thanks for your suggestions, but this uglifies everything a lot. I
think that we look at `@anchor` from two different points of view.
For the LilyPond documentation, this command is not used to mark
arbitrary spots for cross-referencing but to allow references to
sections that don't use `@node`. For this reason, making the
behaviour of `@anchor` & `@xref` as similar as `@node` & `@xref` would
be very benificial.
>> * It helps avoid issues with transliteration. All redirection file
>> names are in a single language, namely English.
>
> I do not get how this can work, the files need to be different?
Sorry, I don't understand what you want to say.
>> * With my suggestion, if a `@node` gets converted to `@anchor` for
>> whatever reason, all references from external files appear
>> exactly the same if `@xrefautomaticsectiontitle` is active – and
>> LilyPond has *a lot* of external references... Without it, the
>> reference suddenly shows something else, and it would be
>> necessary to modify the reference command by adding the old
>> sectioning name as a third argument to get that back.
>
> But do you really want to get the old sectioning name back for printed
> output?
Yes, because using `@anchor` would be the result of demoting, say,
`@subsection` to `@subsubheading`.
Werner
