https://codereview.appspot.com/61630045/diff/20001/Documentation/usage/running.itely File Documentation/usage/running.itely (left):
https://codereview.appspot.com/61630045/diff/20001/Documentation/usage/running.itely#oldcode670 Documentation/usage/running.itely:670: relevant when @code{PDF} is generated from PostScript output Maybe we should be using @acronym here? It's used in several other places in the docs so it is not that we don't support it. It's not mentioned in our coding guidelines. Maybe it should? https://codereview.appspot.com/61630045/diff/20001/Documentation/usage/running.itely File Documentation/usage/running.itely (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/61630045/diff/20001/Documentation/usage/running.itely#newcode409 Documentation/usage/running.itely:409: SVG output should be compatible with any SVG editor or user agent. There On 2014/02/14 10:24:08, Devon Schudy wrote:
Most users don't know the term "user agent". Maybe "browser" or
"viewer"
instead?
I don't understand what this is trying to get at. First it says it "should" be compatible with any SVG reader. Then it mentions that you might want to try some option for using different font files. So it isn't compatible with any reader? Or what's the point? At any rate, if a certain file format is produced, the expectation is that it is useful for programs reading that format. Short of any useful information to the contrary, this sentence should just get removed. https://codereview.appspot.com/61630045/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel