Urs Liska <li...@ursliska.de> writes: > Am 10.01.2013 22:26, schrieb Graham Percival: >> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 10:43:42AM +0100, Urs Liska wrote: >>> * Maintain the library's documentation and the tutorials (starting >>> with Antonio's proposed text on orchestral scores and hopefully with >>> a conversion of my existing tutorial) as a set of LaTeX documents. >>> * I think there is no real alternative to this because >> Why LaTeX as opposed to texinfo? > You want me to be honest? Because I don't know anything about it. >> If it's latex, do you plan to >> use latex2html, or simply not offer any html output at all? > So far we're only talking about creating PDF documents. > If anybody steps in (your email partially fulfils this already) > convincing us that it makes sense to switch to something different > (and gives some hints on where to start or ideally offers help) I > don't think anybody will object. >> If >> you work in texinfo, then material could be added to the main >> lilypond documentation, exposing it to more readers. > Do you think that's a realistic option? > Would lilypond documentation be 'open' enough to incorporate material > that might not be too tailored to the given structure or style?
Various parts of LilyPond's documentation have different styles. I see no problem whatsoever with providing a "user reports" manual where each chapter has the personal style of its author. The long-term problem is maintenance: preserving consistency of style while the content wants to be changed along with changes of LilyPond itself. Of course it will help when the original author continues to feel responsible for keeping his report matched to current LilyPond versions. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
