On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 07:55:32PM +0200, John Mandereau wrote: > Le dimanche 27 septembre 2009 à 17:37 +0100, Graham Percival a écrit : > > As far as I'm concerned, as long as newbies know that it's > > *possible* to do all sorts of funky stuff with this magical scheme > > stuff, that's all they need to know. > Certainly. However, when we decide time has come to significantly > expand this appendix and it gets too big to remain an appendix, we'll > have to reword the reading guidelines so the reader doesn't feel he > should even read this chapter,
I guess. We'd also need to reword the intro to Notation, since that "assumes the reader has read and understood the Learning manual". > > Was that seriously the reason? I don't follow... I mean, the html > > filename is "LilyPond-index.html". > > So, why do you criticize the name "LilyPond index"? The constraint is > that we must have a node name other than "Index", otherwise the splitted > HTML page name would clash with Top node HTML page index.html (not on > Unix systems, but on Windows). I'm wondering if we can call them "Function index" and "Concept index". Or something like that. It just seems weird to have a "LilyPond index" for every manual. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel