John Mandereau wrote:
We could use @anchor to get links (@ref's in Info) on the same page, but
I'm not sure *Menu items can redirect to an @anchor.
@menu items direct to @section items. This is no problem.
We will decide about having larger HTML pages (and thus larger Info
nodes) in a furth
Le lundi 10 septembre 2007 à 15:31 +0200, Reinhold Kainhofer a écrit :
> Am Montag, 10. September 2007 schrieb Graham Percival:
> > Rune Zedeler wrote:
> > > Well, in its current state I find the "each subsection has its own page"
> > > version of the manual unusable, and therefore always uses the
Le lundi 10 septembre 2007 à 14:46 +0200, Mats Bengtsson a écrit :
> Yes, I guess my main point was the on-line manual, where the splitting into
> separate HTML pages is a problem in some cases, like Valentin just
> illustrated. As far as I understand, it's the texinfo -> HTML conversion
> that
>
Am Montag, 10. September 2007 schrieb Graham Percival:
> Rune Zedeler wrote:
> > Well, in its current state I find the "each subsection has its own page"
> > version of the manual unusable, and therefore always uses the one big
> > page manual. I suggest that we gives each section its own page cont
2007/9/10, Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Err.. we're talking about Changing defaults, a chapter which hasn't been
> significantly changed in the past three years, and which you've
> _already_ complained as being a pile of garbage... and using this as an
> argument for changing the way the
On 10.09.2007 (05:28), Graham Percival wrote:
> Eyolf Østrem wrote:
> >I would also say -- although this may exceed the limits of what kind
> >of suggestions were allowed -- that one thing that is missing is a
> >comprehensive survey of the syntax of Lilypond.
> Like Appendix E Cheat sheet ? It's
Yes, I guess my main point was the on-line manual, where the splitting into
separate HTML pages is a problem in some cases, like Valentin just
illustrated. As far as I understand, it's the texinfo -> HTML conversion
that
imposes the constraint that each subsection ends up in a separate HTML.
It
Valentin Villenave wrote:
Just a question...
(by the way, is it really relevant to cross post this entire
discussion to -devel?)
We're talking about some major lilypond development work here.
Documentation is still development. A better question is "is it really
relevant to cross post this
Just a question...
(by the way, is it really relevant to cross post this entire
discussion to -devel?)
I'm finishing translating the current chapter #9 (changing-defaults)
and here's what I see:
9.3.2
"Suppose we want to move the fingering indication in the fragment below:"
===> but it actually
Eyolf Østrem wrote:
I would also say -- although this may exceed the limits of what kind
of suggestions were allowed -- that one thing that is missing is a
comprehensive survey of the syntax of Lilypond.
Like Appendix E Cheat sheet ? It's quite limited at the moment, but is
that what you're t
Trevor Bača wrote:
~ subsection 8.4.3 "Proportional notation" can be removed completely
in favor of subsection 11.6.5 "Proportional notation"
I'd rather not remove subsections yet; we'll do that when we GDPify that
particular chapter.
~ subsections 8.4.4 "Clusters" and 8.4.5 "Special notehe
Rune Zedeler wrote:
Well, in its current state I find the "each subsection has its own page" version
of the manual unusable, and therefore always uses the one big page manual.
I suggest that we gives each section its own page containing section and all
subsections. Ofcourse each section should st
On 09.09.2007 (16:32), Graham Percival wrote:
> Well, don't I feel like a complete newbie. :/Does anybody know how to
> make Thunderbird treat text like pure bloody text, and not change the
> displayed text when it sends an email out? thanks in advance. :(
One of the reasons why I prefer
Trevor Bac(a skrev:
As a first pass, I took a look at chapter 8 "Advanced notation",
because I've never been very comfortable with the distinction between
"basic", "advanced" and "contemporary" notation in the current
structure.
It seems like your comments are meant to the online 2.11 document
On 9/9/07, Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mats Bengtsson wrote:
> > Just one general comment for the moment: I'd rather propose longer than
> > shorter subsections. I think that there already is too much fragmentation
> > at some places for the moment, which means that you never get t
Citat Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Just one general comment for the moment: I'd rather propose longer than
> > shorter subsections. I think that there already is too much fragmentation
> > at some places for the moment, which means that you never get the chance
> > to see the full pict
Mats Bengtsson wrote:
Just one general comment for the moment: I'd rather propose longer than
shorter subsections. I think that there already is too much fragmentation
at some places for the moment, which means that you never get the chance
to see the full picture as a reader.
Interesting suggest
Just one general comment for the moment: I'd rather propose longer than
shorter subsections. I think that there already is too much fragmentation
at some places for the moment, which means that you never get the chance
to see the full picture as a reader. We shouldn't expect a user to keep
reading
Rune Zedeler wrote:
Sorry I do not understand what you mean.
How can we discuss "arrangement of subsections" without discussing new
subsections or renaming of subsections?
Another addendum: I know from experience that these discussions about
documentation quickly lose focus and people come up w
Rune Zedeler wrote:
Graham Percival skrev:
LIMITED DISCUSSION
To keep discussion focused and as un-confused as possible, this is a
discussion *only* about the arrangement of subsections. Other parts of
GDP will be discussed later.
This means:
- propose new/changed chapter/sections
- propose r
Graham Percival skrev:
LIMITED DISCUSSION
To keep discussion focused and as un-confused as possible, this is a
discussion *only* about the arrangement of subsections. Other parts of
GDP will be discussed later.
This means:
- propose new/changed chapter/sections
- propose renamings of chapter/s
Despite me being fairly happy with out table of contents, I think we
could still improve the arrangement of subsections. Here's my proposal.
LIMITED DISCUSSION
To keep discussion focused and as un-confused as possible, this is a
discussion *only* about the arrangement of subsections. Other part
22 matches
Mail list logo