Re: HTML formatting for *all* LSR snippets descriptions?
2009/8/7 Valentin Villenave :
> So, I'm thinking that we'd better junk these pseudo-options, and ask
> Seba to make HTML formatting allowed in all snippet descriptions.
I think this is the best option; anything which simplifies the process
of adding snippets for users is preferable.
Do you know which HTML tags are guaranteed to be converted though? For
example, and don't work, while produces a complete mess.
Here's a demonstration of the problems, from flamenco-notation.ly
(http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?u=1&id=409):
* * a golpe symbol to indicate a slap on the guitar body with the nail
of the ring finger * * an arrow to indicate (the direction of) strokes
* * different letters for fingering (@qq{p}: thumb, @qq{i}: index
finger, @qq{m}: middle finger, @qq{a}: ring finger and @qq{x}: little
finger) * * 3- and 4-finger rasgueados; stroke upwards with all
fingers, ending with an up- and down using the index finger * *
abanicos: strokes (in tuples) with thumb (down), little and index
finger (both up). There's also an abanico 2 where middle and ring
finger are used instead of the little finger. * * alza pua: fast
playing with the thumb
Regards,
Neil
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: HTML formatting for *all* LSR snippets descriptions?
2009/8/8 Graham Percival : > I don't think I missed anything? A doc editor knows that @q > produces a single quote, so they might expect that would > also produce a single quote. Conversely, somebody who's been > editing lots of snippets and starts doing doc work might be > unpleasantly surprised that @q produces a single quote. Nah, this is simple enough to understand: use in html BUT in texinfo use @qq use in html BUT in texinfo use @emph etc. Regards, Valentin ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: HTML formatting for *all* LSR snippets descriptions?
On Sat, Aug 08, 2009 at 07:44:44AM +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
> >> becomes @qq{}
> >
> > One small concern: produces double-quotes, whereas our texinfo
> > @q{} produces single quotes. I don't think it's a big deal, but
> > it might confuse somebody down the road.
>
> Read it again, Graham :-)
I don't think I missed anything? A doc editor knows that @q
produces a single quote, so they might expect that would
also produce a single quote. Conversely, somebody who's been
editing lots of snippets and starts doing doc work might be
unpleasantly surprised that @q produces a single quote.
I'm not suggesting that the automatic script is wrong... I guess
it's more that I wish that we'd chosen different macros back when
@q and @qq were introduced.
Cheers,
- Graham
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: HTML formatting for *all* LSR snippets descriptions?
2009/8/7 Trevor Daniels :
> Sounds reasonable. Do we make it clear anywhere what html
> markup is permitted in snippets destined for the docs (defined
> by tags that are doc-related)? Just so people don't use markup
> that isn't going to be translated to texinfo.
The point would be that all standard HTML formatting would be
translated. And we don't want to allow non-basic HTML code.
> Should any other markup be translated?
> e.g
> to @strong{}
> to @emph{}
> etc
I believe these tags are already supported.
Regards,
Valentin
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: HTML formatting for *all* LSR snippets descriptions?
>> becomes @qq{}
>
> One small concern: produces double-quotes, whereas our texinfo
> @q{} produces single quotes. I don't think it's a big deal, but
> it might confuse somebody down the road.
Read it again, Graham :-)
Werner
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: HTML formatting for *all* LSR snippets descriptions?
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 10:45:59PM +0200, Valentin Villenave wrote:
> So, I'm thinking that we'd better junk these pseudo-options, and ask
> Seba to make HTML formatting allowed in all snippet descriptions.
That makes sense.
> becomes @code{}, becomes @qq{} (Seba has just
> implemented this one, and I've rewritten all snippets accordingly, as
> Werner asked).
I was going to complain that wasn't real html, but apparently
it is! So why the mao do people use those silly &ngr; (or
whatever) codes?!
... oh, I see. It's not supported in IE. Oh well. :)
One small concern: produces double-quotes, whereas our texinfo
@q{} produces single quotes. I don't think it's a big deal, but
it might confuse somebody down the road.
Cheers,
- Graham
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: HTML formatting for *all* LSR snippets descriptions?
Valentin Villenave wrote Friday, August 07, 2009 9:45 PM
So, I'm thinking that we'd better junk these pseudo-options, and
ask
Seba to make HTML formatting allowed in all snippet descriptions.
Thoughts?
Sounds reasonable. Do we make it clear anywhere what html
markup is permitted in snippets destined for the docs (defined
by tags that are doc-related)? Just so people don't use markup
that isn't going to be translated to texinfo.
Should any other markup be translated?
e.g
to @strong{}
to @emph{}
etc
Trevor
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
HTML formatting for *all* LSR snippets descriptions?
Greetings everybody,
Currently, the LSR offers three options for snippets descriptions formatting:
- Pure Unicode text
- Full HTML
- HTML fragment
`Full HTML' is not used in any snippet.
`HTML fragment' is used in most of the snippets; when generating the
doc-snippets, tags are automatically converted into texinfo:
becomes @code{}, becomes @qq{} (Seba has just
implemented this one, and I've rewritten all snippets accordingly, as
Werner asked).
`Pure Unicode' is sometimes used, but I think we shouldn't recommend
it any longer, since such (lack of) formatting doesn't meet our
documentation-writing guidelines. Besides, any user who want to write
plain text can do so in HTML too.
So, I'm thinking that we'd better junk these pseudo-options, and ask
Seba to make HTML formatting allowed in all snippet descriptions.
Thoughts?
Regards,
Valentin
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
