On Thu, Jan 01, 2009 at 03:52:42PM -0700, Carl D. Sorensen wrote: > > On 1/1/09 11:25 AM, "Trevor Daniels" <t.dani...@treda.co.uk> wrote: > > > During GDP we experimented with various headings for > > the levels below @subsection and I thought we had > > standardised on @unnumberedsubsubsec with @node and > > a menu entry. At least this is used in pitches, which > > I thought was the gold standard for formatting. > > I think we already have clear standards for revision under GOP -- they're > the same as for the GDP. Unless you are proposing different standards for > the LM and the NR. If that's the case, then ignore my comments, because I'd > be fine with your standards if they apply only to the LM. If they apply to > the NR, I think it would be a mistake to undo what we did with the GDP.
Um. I'm more confused that I was before. Here's my proposal. NR - make it all like NR 1.1 Pitches. LM - make it all like LM 2 Tutorial. If that means that we have @subheadings like in LM 2.1.2 Simple notation, that's fine. But these @subheadings don't, and shouldn't, make a new HTML and a new ToC entry. AU - slated for rewriting anyway. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
