Hello, On 21 April 2012 10:13, Jean-Charles Malahieude <lily...@orange.fr> wrote: ...
> This makes me believe it would be a good opportunity to have the English > version follow the same rule as translations. Err.. not sure what you mean by that technically but it's complicated enough with snippets as it is, to follow the translation method adds even more complexity (if the CG is anything to go by). Remember that unless you are doing this all the time (which the translators will be) it isn't that straightforward. We want to encourage contributors not push them away. >From a very basic-no-progamming skill perspective, why can't we just have an extra texidoc entry in the snippet itself and add the translation manually, like we would for any updated snippet? Having another set of files to edit just to put in an explanation seems silly and now we have to link files to those as well? So in the NR we have an @snippet that links to a dir with the snippet that now has to link to a texidoc for that snippet in another dir. How is that better? In fact, why do we even need a texidoc string *inside* the snippet? I don't use one for @lilypond examples. Why not explicitly translate the snippet 'text' in the manual like we do for everything else. Wouldn't that be easier long term? James _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
