Re: Learning Manual TOC missing subsubsubsections
On 1/3/09 4:16 AM, "Trevor Daniels" wrote: > > > Carl D. Sorensen wrote Friday, January 02, 2009 7:56 PM > >> I'd be in favor of a policy that says the equivalent of the following: >> >> "Each chapter has a defined section structure. >> >> The structure consists of chapter, section, and subsection. >> >> If subsubsections are desired, they should be unnumbered, and all >> subsections in the chapter should include subsubsections. >> >> All substantive information in the chapter should be at the lowest section >> level." > > Perfect! I'll subscribe to that. > >> IMO, if one part of chapter needs more headings than other parts, there's >> probably a potential for reorganization. > > Yes; this is a good indicator. > >> Also, as I've looked more into it, I may want to recommend that NR 5 and >> NR >> 6 be combined (but I'm not sure yet). > > No, they should remain separate. Tweaks in NR 5 should not require > any Scheme programming; those in NR 6 clearly do. Since Scheme > programming will be a watershed for many users this is a valuable > distinction which should be maintained. I agree this is a strong reason for drawing a clear distinction between NR 5 and NR6, and it gives an unambiguous criterion for deciding where to place things. So for now I will suspend my proposal. But I'm still retaining the right to renew it if I believe I should. My own personal work style has me using both NR5 and NR6 as an integrated pair as I work on things. Thanks, Carl ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Learning Manual TOC missing subsubsubsections
Carl D. Sorensen wrote Friday, January 02, 2009 7:56 PM I'd be in favor of a policy that says the equivalent of the following: "Each chapter has a defined section structure. The structure consists of chapter, section, and subsection. If subsubsections are desired, they should be unnumbered, and all subsections in the chapter should include subsubsections. All substantive information in the chapter should be at the lowest section level." Perfect! I'll subscribe to that. IMO, if one part of chapter needs more headings than other parts, there's probably a potential for reorganization. Yes; this is a good indicator. Also, as I've looked more into it, I may want to recommend that NR 5 and NR 6 be combined (but I'm not sure yet). No, they should remain separate. Tweaks in NR 5 should not require any Scheme programming; those in NR 6 clearly do. Since Scheme programming will be a watershed for many users this is a valuable distinction which should be maintained. Trevor ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Learning Manual TOC missing subsubsubsections
Graham Percival Saturday, January 03, 2009 4:01 AM On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 12:56:18PM -0700, Carl D. Sorensen wrote: On 1/2/09 12:30 PM, "Trevor Daniels" wrote: > I agree; that's why it is important to set out the standards > clearly and to ensure they are consistent with clarity. Look > at chapter 3. Mao. I only just noticed that most of NR 3 has a different depth than NR 1+2. Sorry, Trevor. No problem. For the next week, feel free to tell me "Graham you're being an idiot" Valentin - do you hear that! Trevor ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Learning Manual TOC missing subsubsubsections
On 1/2/09 9:01 PM, "Graham Percival" wrote: > On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 12:56:18PM -0700, Carl D. Sorensen wrote: >> >> On 1/2/09 12:30 PM, "Trevor Daniels" wrote: >> >>> I agree; that's why it is important to set out the standards >>> clearly and to ensure they are consistent with clarity. Look >>> at chapter 3. > > Mao. I only just noticed that most of NR 3 has a different depth > than NR 1+2. Sorry, Trevor. > > For the next week, feel free to tell me "Graham you're being an > idiot" -- for the next few days I'm going to be frazzled over the > upcoming flight, then on Tues (my 30th birthday!) I spend the > entire day in the air or airports (thanks to crossing the date > line, that day is something like 12 hours long for me :), and > after that I'll be setting up in an unfamiliar city and unfamiliar > university. Look forward to plenty of stupid mistakes from me! > (I didn't think that I'd be this bad, but the past day or two > definitely shows that I'm not at my best) When we went to Japan in 1998, my wife missed her birthday. We left on the night before her birthday, and crossed the dateline in-flight, and arrived on the afternoon after her birthday. You'll have a great adventure! >> As I've reviewed NR 3, 4, 5, and 6, it appears to me that these chapters are >> inherently less deep than chapters 1 and 2. >> >> I'd be in favor of a policy that says the equivalent of the following: >> >> "Each chapter has a defined section structure. >> >> The structure consists of chapter, section, and subsection. >> >> If subsubsections are desired, they should be unnumbered, and all >> subsections in the chapter should include subsubsections. >> >> All substantive information in the chapter should be at the lowest section >> level." > > Sounds fine. > >> IMO, if one part of chapter needs more headings than other parts, there's >> probably a potential for reorganization. > > Yes. > >> Also, as I've looked more into it, I may want to recommend that NR 5 and NR >> 6 be combined (but I'm not sure yet). > > My first instinct is that no, the chapters are long enough as they > are. Think of NR 1+2 -- the division of "instrument-specific" is > relatively flimsy, but we didn't want to have too many sections > all in NR 1. Yes, but you need to remember that 5 and 6 are one level less deep than 1 and 2. If we combined 5 and 6, and did no other reorganization, we'd have a chapter with two sections, each of which had about 3 subsections, and an appropriate number of subsubsections. We're not in NR 1 + 2 range at all, yet. > > I'd also argue that NR 5 is perfectly usable by non-programmers, > but NR 6 requires some amount of programmer-type thought. I think this is a good way of breaking things down. I'll look at it carefully before my real proposal (which, as you point out, won't be until 2.13). Thanks, Carl ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Learning Manual TOC missing subsubsubsections
On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 12:56:18PM -0700, Carl D. Sorensen wrote: > > On 1/2/09 12:30 PM, "Trevor Daniels" wrote: > > > I agree; that's why it is important to set out the standards > > clearly and to ensure they are consistent with clarity. Look > > at chapter 3. Mao. I only just noticed that most of NR 3 has a different depth than NR 1+2. Sorry, Trevor. For the next week, feel free to tell me "Graham you're being an idiot" -- for the next few days I'm going to be frazzled over the upcoming flight, then on Tues (my 30th birthday!) I spend the entire day in the air or airports (thanks to crossing the date line, that day is something like 12 hours long for me :), and after that I'll be setting up in an unfamiliar city and unfamiliar university. Look forward to plenty of stupid mistakes from me! (I didn't think that I'd be this bad, but the past day or two definitely shows that I'm not at my best) ... err, this special notice isn't meant to suggest that you shouldn't feel free to tell me that I'm being an idiot for the rest of the time. > As I've reviewed NR 3, 4, 5, and 6, it appears to me that these chapters are > inherently less deep than chapters 1 and 2. > > I'd be in favor of a policy that says the equivalent of the following: > > "Each chapter has a defined section structure. > > The structure consists of chapter, section, and subsection. > > If subsubsections are desired, they should be unnumbered, and all > subsections in the chapter should include subsubsections. > > All substantive information in the chapter should be at the lowest section > level." Sounds fine. > IMO, if one part of chapter needs more headings than other parts, there's > probably a potential for reorganization. Yes. > Also, as I've looked more into it, I may want to recommend that NR 5 and NR > 6 be combined (but I'm not sure yet). My first instinct is that no, the chapters are long enough as they are. Think of NR 1+2 -- the division of "instrument-specific" is relatively flimsy, but we didn't want to have too many sections all in NR 1. I'd also argue that NR 5 is perfectly usable by non-programmers, but NR 6 requires some amount of programmer-type thought. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Learning Manual TOC missing subsubsubsections
On 1/2/09 12:30 PM, "Trevor Daniels" wrote: > > > Carl D. Sorensen wrote Friday, January 02, 2009 1:44 PM > >> On 1/2/09 2:32 AM, "Trevor Daniels" wrote: >>> >>> Carl D. Sorensen wrote Thursday, January 01, 2009 10:52 PM >>> On 1/1/09 11:25 AM, "Trevor Daniels" wrote: >>> >>> Yes, NR 1 & 2 are fine. I was suggesting a slight variation >>> on them for the LM and later chapters of the NR, since here >>> a lot of the text does not need to be subdivided or ToC'd. >>> The formatting of NR 1 & 2 is clear; it is the rest of the >>> manual and the LM which is rather variable at present and I >>> wanted to have a clear policy written down before these sections >>> are firmed up. >> >> I think we should maintain the NR standards throughout the NR. For >> example, >> NR 6 is currently *not* organized according to the NR standards, so there >> are places where an additional menu layer needs to be added. But I had >> the >> same problem when writing chords.itely, and I think the resulting >> consistency in the manual is well worth maintaining. > > I agree; that's why it is important to set out the standards > clearly and to ensure they are consistent with clarity. Look > at chapter 3. It would be silly to invent @unnumberedsubsubsecs > for the sections there; they don't need it. I think the standards > must accommodate the needs of the documentation, and must not > be so rigid that clarity is compromised. As I've reviewed NR 3, 4, 5, and 6, it appears to me that these chapters are inherently less deep than chapters 1 and 2. I'd be in favor of a policy that says the equivalent of the following: "Each chapter has a defined section structure. The structure consists of chapter, section, and subsection. If subsubsections are desired, they should be unnumbered, and all subsections in the chapter should include subsubsections. All substantive information in the chapter should be at the lowest section level." IMO, if one part of chapter needs more headings than other parts, there's probably a potential for reorganization. Also, as I've looked more into it, I may want to recommend that NR 5 and NR 6 be combined (but I'm not sure yet). Keep up the good work! Carl > > Trevor > > ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Learning Manual TOC missing subsubsubsections
Carl D. Sorensen wrote Friday, January 02, 2009 1:44 PM On 1/2/09 2:32 AM, "Trevor Daniels" wrote: Carl D. Sorensen wrote Thursday, January 01, 2009 10:52 PM On 1/1/09 11:25 AM, "Trevor Daniels" wrote: I think we already have clear standards for revision under GOP -- they're the same as for the GDP. Unless you are proposing different standards for the LM and the NR. If that's the case, then ignore my comments, because I'd be fine with your standards if they apply only to the LM. If they apply to the NR, I think it would be a mistake to undo what we did with the GDP. So ignore the rest of my comments if you intend them to apply to the LM only. Yes, NR 1 & 2 are fine. I was suggesting a slight variation on them for the LM and later chapters of the NR, since here a lot of the text does not need to be subdivided or ToC'd. The formatting of NR 1 & 2 is clear; it is the rest of the manual and the LM which is rather variable at present and I wanted to have a clear policy written down before these sections are firmed up. I think we should maintain the NR standards throughout the NR. For example, NR 6 is currently *not* organized according to the NR standards, so there are places where an additional menu layer needs to be added. But I had the same problem when writing chords.itely, and I think the resulting consistency in the manual is well worth maintaining. I agree; that's why it is important to set out the standards clearly and to ensure they are consistent with clarity. Look at chapter 3. It would be silly to invent @unnumberedsubsubsecs for the sections there; they don't need it. I think the standards must accommodate the needs of the documentation, and must not be so rigid that clarity is compromised. Trevor ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Learning Manual TOC missing subsubsubsections
On 1/2/09 2:32 AM, "Trevor Daniels" wrote: > > > Carl D. Sorensen wrote Thursday, January 01, 2009 10:52 PM > >> On 1/1/09 11:25 AM, "Trevor Daniels" wrote: > >> >> I think we already have clear standards for revision under GOP -- they're >> the same as for the GDP. Unless you are proposing different standards for >> the LM and the NR. If that's the case, then ignore my comments, because >> I'd >> be fine with your standards if they apply only to the LM. If they apply >> to >> the NR, I think it would be a mistake to undo what we did with the GDP. >> >> So ignore the rest of my comments if you intend them to apply to the LM >> only. > > Yes, NR 1 & 2 are fine. I was suggesting a slight variation > on them for the LM and later chapters of the NR, since here > a lot of the text does not need to be subdivided or ToC'd. > The formatting of NR 1 & 2 is clear; it is the rest of the > manual and the LM which is rather variable at present and I > wanted to have a clear policy written down before these sections > are firmed up. I think we should maintain the NR standards throughout the NR. For example, NR 6 is currently *not* organized according to the NR standards, so there are places where an additional menu layer needs to be added. But I had the same problem when writing chords.itely, and I think the resulting consistency in the manual is well worth maintaining. Carl ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Learning Manual TOC missing subsubsubsections
Graham Percival wrote Thursday, January 01, 2009 9:26 PM
Much of the LM was written before this policy was instated,
so other forms tend to be used there, like @subsubheading
and others which just use a @bo...@italic{..} one line
paragraph, and as the LM hasn't yet been revised these
non-standard formats are still there.
In terms of the ToC presentation, I like the way the LM looks
(knowing that it's different from the NR), with the exception of
3.3.4.
The specific problem with the examples quoted in LM 3.3.4 is that they
use @unnumberedsubsubsec without an accompanying
@menu entry and @node, so they are formatted differently
in the ToC.
IMO, the problem is that 3.3.4 uses a fourth level of subdivision.
I would rather see the two "Setting..." subdivisions turned into
@subsubheading instead.
Remember that if we have
x.y.z
x.y.z.a
x.y.z.b
then some people will assume that x.y.z contains nothing useful,
especially in info or html. That's why I'm so hard on "don't put
any real info in the chapter heading, the section heading, or the
subsection heading" in the NR.
Yes, the priciple of placing all the real information at
the lowest level visible in the ToC is a good one, but the
example you quote can be resolved in two ways: you can
either merge everything into x.y.z or you can add a new
first subsection to take the text previously outside the
two lower sections, giving
x.y.z
x.y.z.a
x.y.z.b
x.y.z.c
These two approaches were the ones I outlined in my
first note. Either would work for LM 3.3.4, but because
the LM is intended to be read linearly I agree with you
that the first of these is better in that case.
Trevor
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Learning Manual TOC missing subsubsubsections
Carl D. Sorensen wrote Thursday, January 01, 2009 10:52 PM
On 1/1/09 11:25 AM, "Trevor Daniels" wrote:
Graham
During GDP we experimented with various headings for
the levels below @subsection and I thought we had
standardised on @unnumberedsubsubsec with @node and
a menu entry. At least this is used in pitches, which
I thought was the gold standard for formatting.
Much of the LM was written before this policy was instated,
so other forms tend to be used there, like @subsubheading
and others which just use a @bo...@italic{..} one line
paragraph, and as the LM hasn't yet been revised these
non-standard formats are still there.
The specific problem with the examples quoted in LM 3.3.4
is that they use @unnumberedsubsubsec without an accompanying
@menu entry and @node, so they are formatted differently
in the ToC. I'll fix this, but we really need to lay down
clear standards for revisions under GOP.
I think we already have clear standards for revision under GOP -- they're
the same as for the GDP. Unless you are proposing different standards for
the LM and the NR. If that's the case, then ignore my comments, because
I'd
be fine with your standards if they apply only to the LM. If they apply
to
the NR, I think it would be a mistake to undo what we did with the GDP.
So ignore the rest of my comments if you intend them to apply to the LM
only.
Yes, NR 1 & 2 are fine. I was suggesting a slight variation
on them for the LM and later chapters of the NR, since here
a lot of the text does not need to be subdivided or ToC'd.
The formatting of NR 1 & 2 is clear; it is the rest of the
manual and the LM which is rather variable at present and I
wanted to have a clear policy written down before these sections
are firmed up.
Trevor
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Learning Manual TOC missing subsubsubsections
On Thu, Jan 01, 2009 at 03:52:42PM -0700, Carl D. Sorensen wrote: > > On 1/1/09 11:25 AM, "Trevor Daniels" wrote: > > > During GDP we experimented with various headings for > > the levels below @subsection and I thought we had > > standardised on @unnumberedsubsubsec with @node and > > a menu entry. At least this is used in pitches, which > > I thought was the gold standard for formatting. > > I think we already have clear standards for revision under GOP -- they're > the same as for the GDP. Unless you are proposing different standards for > the LM and the NR. If that's the case, then ignore my comments, because I'd > be fine with your standards if they apply only to the LM. If they apply to > the NR, I think it would be a mistake to undo what we did with the GDP. Um. I'm more confused that I was before. Here's my proposal. NR - make it all like NR 1.1 Pitches. LM - make it all like LM 2 Tutorial. If that means that we have @subheadings like in LM 2.1.2 Simple notation, that's fine. But these @subheadings don't, and shouldn't, make a new HTML and a new ToC entry. AU - slated for rewriting anyway. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Learning Manual TOC missing subsubsubsections
On 1/1/09 11:25 AM, "Trevor Daniels" wrote:
> Graham
>
> During GDP we experimented with various headings for
> the levels below @subsection and I thought we had
> standardised on @unnumberedsubsubsec with @node and
> a menu entry. At least this is used in pitches, which
> I thought was the gold standard for formatting.
>
> Much of the LM was written before this policy was instated,
> so other forms tend to be used there, like @subsubheading
> and others which just use a @bo...@italic{..} one line
> paragraph, and as the LM hasn't yet been revised these
> non-standard formats are still there.
>
> The specific problem with the examples quoted in LM 3.3.4
> is that they use @unnumberedsubsubsec without an accompanying
> @menu entry and @node, so they are formatted differently
> in the ToC. I'll fix this, but we really need to lay down
> clear standards for revisions under GOP.
I think we already have clear standards for revision under GOP -- they're
the same as for the GDP. Unless you are proposing different standards for
the LM and the NR. If that's the case, then ignore my comments, because I'd
be fine with your standards if they apply only to the LM. If they apply to
the NR, I think it would be a mistake to undo what we did with the GDP.
So ignore the rest of my comments if you intend them to apply to the LM
only.
> I suggest the
> following - they look fine in both html and pdf but I can't
> check info:
>
> @node Level 1
> @chapter Level 1
Yes
>
> @menu
> * Level 2::
> @end menu
>
> @node Level 2
> @section Level 2
Yes
>
> @menu
> * Level 3::
> @end menu
>
> @node Level 3
> @subsection Level 3
>
Yes, for organization.
> Most of the text goes here
>
NO. Only introductory text goes in subsections
> @menu
> * Level 4
> @end menu
>
> @node Level 4
> @unnumberedsubsubsec Level 4
>
> Long subsubsecs go here, so they appear in the Toc
> Each has a separate html page
Most of the text goes here. They appear in the TOC. But because we use
unnumberedsubsubsec, each does not have a separate html page. The separate
html pages are for Level 3, the subsection level. You will see this
consistently in NR 1 and 2.
>
> or @subsubheading Level 4 [no menu entry]
>
> Short subsubsecs go here, don't appear in the ToC
> Grouped in one html page
We make no distinction between long and short subsubsecs. All are
unnumbered, and all are grouped in one html page. This is accomplished by
unnumberedsubsubsec.
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Learning Manual TOC missing subsubsubsections
On Thu, Jan 01, 2009 at 06:25:22PM -, Trevor Daniels wrote:
> During GDP we experimented with various headings for
> the levels below @subsection and I thought we had
> standardised on @unnumberedsubsubsec with @node and
> a menu entry. At least this is used in pitches, which I thought was the
> gold standard for formatting.
Yes, that's the standard for the NR.
> Much of the LM was written before this policy was instated,
> so other forms tend to be used there, like @subsubheading
> and others which just use a @bo...@italic{..} one line
> paragraph, and as the LM hasn't yet been revised these
> non-standard formats are still there.
In terms of the ToC presentation, I like the way the LM looks
(knowing that it's different from the NR), with the exception of
3.3.4.
> The specific problem with the examples quoted in LM 3.3.4 is that they
> use @unnumberedsubsubsec without an accompanying
> @menu entry and @node, so they are formatted differently
> in the ToC.
IMO, the problem is that 3.3.4 uses a fourth level of subdivision.
I would rather see the two "Setting..." subdivisions turned into
@subsubheading instead.
Remember that if we have
x.y.z
x.y.z.a
x.y.z.b
then some people will assume that x.y.z contains nothing useful,
especially in info or html. That's why I'm so hard on "don't put
any real info in the chapter heading, the section heading, or the
subsection heading" in the NR.
I have no clue if this is explained in policy.txt, but it should
be. Each manual is consistent with itself; it doesn't matter if
different maunals have different levels of divisions.
(the upcoming "Developer's Guide" will probably only have two
divisions -- chapter and section -- for example)
Cheers,
- Graham
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Learning Manual TOC missing subsubsubsections
Graham
During GDP we experimented with various headings for
the levels below @subsection and I thought we had
standardised on @unnumberedsubsubsec with @node and
a menu entry. At least this is used in pitches, which
I thought was the gold standard for formatting.
Much of the LM was written before this policy was instated,
so other forms tend to be used there, like @subsubheading
and others which just use a @bo...@italic{..} one line
paragraph, and as the LM hasn't yet been revised these
non-standard formats are still there.
The specific problem with the examples quoted in LM 3.3.4
is that they use @unnumberedsubsubsec without an accompanying
@menu entry and @node, so they are formatted differently
in the ToC. I'll fix this, but we really need to lay down
clear standards for revisions under GOP. I suggest the
following - they look fine in both html and pdf but I can't
check info:
@node Level 1
@chapter Level 1
@menu
* Level 2::
@end menu
@node Level 2
@section Level 2
@menu
* Level 3::
@end menu
@node Level 3
@subsection Level 3
Most of the text goes here
@menu
* Level 4
@end menu
@node Level 4
@unnumberedsubsubsec Level 4
Long subsubsecs go here, so they appear in the Toc
Each has a separate html page
or @subsubheading Level 4 [no menu entry]
Short subsubsecs go here, don't appear in the ToC
Grouped in one html page
Trevor
- Original Message -
From: "Graham Percival"
To: "Trevor Daniels"
Cc: "Reinhold Kainhofer" ;
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 1:04 AM
Subject: Re: Learning Manual TOC missing subsubsubsections
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 11:45:38AM -, Trevor Daniels wrote:
Graham Percival wrote Monday, December 29, 2008 12:31 AM
I see sub^3 in LM 3.3.4. Those are the only ones, though.
Are you sure? I can't find any in fundamental.itely.
Line 2011. Yes, they're @unnumberedsubsubsec rather than
@subsubsec, but they still stick out in the LM.
Oh wait; those are sub^2, not sub^3. Still, they're the only two
sub^2 in the entire LM, so IMO they should be changed.
Cheers,
- Graham
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Learning Manual TOC missing subsubsubsections
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 11:45:38AM -, Trevor Daniels wrote: > > Graham Percival wrote Monday, December 29, 2008 12:31 AM > >> I see sub^3 in LM 3.3.4. Those are the only ones, though. > > Are you sure? I can't find any in fundamental.itely. Line 2011. Yes, they're @unnumberedsubsubsec rather than @subsubsec, but they still stick out in the LM. Oh wait; those are sub^2, not sub^3. Still, they're the only two sub^2 in the entire LM, so IMO they should be changed. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Learning Manual TOC missing subsubsubsections
Reinhold Kainhofer wrote Monday, December 29, 2008 12:47 AM Am Montag, 29. Dezember 2008 01:32:17 schrieb Bertalan Fodor: Reinhold Kainhofer írta: > Am Montag, 29. Dezember 2008 01:01:14 schrieb Bertalan Fodor: >> The subsubsubsections are not present in LM toc. > > Which subsubsubsections are you talking about exactly? > I'm only seeing subsubsections (e.g. "2.1.1 Compiling a file") and some > headlines that are not section commands (e.g. "Entering music and > viewing > output" in that subusbsection), so they are intentionally not in the > TOC. Yes, I'm talking about these headlines as in the NR they are included in the toc. Okay, apparently that's intentionally, since they are consistently not in the TOC... The difference to the NR is that in the NR those sections use @node Durations @unnumberedsubsubsec Durations and are thus sectioning commands, while in the LM, they only use @subheading Entering music and viewing output and are thus simple text formatted like section headers (but no logical sectioning). I think this section was written before we adopted the policy of using @unnumberedsubsubsec rather than @subheading. They should be changed, but this is probably best left for the next review so it is done consistently rather than doing it piecemeal. Trevor ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Learning Manual TOC missing subsubsubsections
Graham Percival wrote Monday, December 29, 2008 12:31 AM On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 01:25:37AM +0100, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Am Montag, 29. Dezember 2008 01:01:14 schrieb Bertalan Fodor: > The subsubsubsections are not present in LM toc. Which subsubsubsections are you talking about exactly? I see sub^3 in LM 3.3.4. Those are the only ones, though. Are you sure? I can't find any in fundamental.itely. Trevor ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Learning Manual TOC missing subsubsubsections
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Am Montag, 29. Dezember 2008 01:32:17 schrieb Bertalan Fodor: > Reinhold Kainhofer írta: > > Am Montag, 29. Dezember 2008 01:01:14 schrieb Bertalan Fodor: > >> The subsubsubsections are not present in LM toc. > > > > Which subsubsubsections are you talking about exactly? > > I'm only seeing subsubsections (e.g. "2.1.1 Compiling a file") and some > > headlines that are not section commands (e.g. "Entering music and viewing > > output" in that subusbsection), so they are intentionally not in the TOC. > > Yes, I'm talking about these headlines as in the NR they are included in > the toc. Okay, apparently that's intentionally, since they are consistently not in the TOC... The difference to the NR is that in the NR those sections use @node Durations @unnumberedsubsubsec Durations and are thus sectioning commands, while in the LM, they only use @subheading Entering music and viewing output and are thus simple text formatted like section headers (but no logical sectioning). Cheers, Reinhold - -- - -- Reinhold Kainhofer, reinh...@kainhofer.com, http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/ * Financial & Actuarial Math., Vienna Univ. of Technology, Austria * http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/, DVR: 0005886 * LilyPond, Music typesetting, http://www.lilypond.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFJWB4fTqjEwhXvPN0RArOHAKDQGXTD2h9JChnqUuXj73AeSGnGtwCfVBbX 2SQ5z6uR4Ds+ozEgIaVbX18= =MRRM -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Learning Manual TOC missing subsubsubsections
Yes, I'm talking about these headlines as in the NR they are included in the toc. Reinhold Kainhofer írta: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Am Montag, 29. Dezember 2008 01:01:14 schrieb Bertalan Fodor: The subsubsubsections are not present in LM toc. Which subsubsubsections are you talking about exactly? I'm only seeing subsubsections (e.g. "2.1.1 Compiling a file") and some headlines that are not section commands (e.g. "Entering music and viewing output" in that subusbsection), so they are intentionally not in the TOC. Is this intentional? If you are talking of the headlines like "Entering music and viewing output", then yes. Cheers, Reinhold - -- - -- Reinhold Kainhofer, reinh...@kainhofer.com, http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/ * Financial & Actuarial Math., Vienna Univ. of Technology, Austria * http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/, DVR: 0005886 * LilyPond, Music typesetting, http://www.lilypond.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFJWBkCTqjEwhXvPN0RAlTZAJ9jmPQQuqNLBa5ntwkvzIWd4vAoqACfYtla t8gftXXs3/orBcwMBZgte1o= =lcJr -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Learning Manual TOC missing subsubsubsections
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 01:25:37AM +0100, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Am Montag, 29. Dezember 2008 01:01:14 schrieb Bertalan Fodor: > > The subsubsubsections are not present in LM toc. > > Which subsubsubsections are you talking about exactly? I see sub^3 in LM 3.3.4. Those are the only ones, though. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Learning Manual TOC missing subsubsubsections
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 01:01:14AM +0100, Bertalan Fodor wrote: > The subsubsubsections are not present in LM toc. Is this intentional? This might be a "version of texi2html" thing; I can't find the ToC for the LM at all on lilypond.org. On kainhofer it looks fine: http://kainhofer.com/~lilypond/Documentation/user/lilypond-learning/index_toc.html#SEC_Contents now granted, we're not *supposed* to have subsubsubsections, but that's a separate issue. :) Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Learning Manual TOC missing subsubsubsections
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Am Montag, 29. Dezember 2008 01:01:14 schrieb Bertalan Fodor: > The subsubsubsections are not present in LM toc. Which subsubsubsections are you talking about exactly? I'm only seeing subsubsections (e.g. "2.1.1 Compiling a file") and some headlines that are not section commands (e.g. "Entering music and viewing output" in that subusbsection), so they are intentionally not in the TOC. > Is this intentional? If you are talking of the headlines like "Entering music and viewing output", then yes. Cheers, Reinhold - -- - -- Reinhold Kainhofer, reinh...@kainhofer.com, http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/ * Financial & Actuarial Math., Vienna Univ. of Technology, Austria * http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/, DVR: 0005886 * LilyPond, Music typesetting, http://www.lilypond.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFJWBkCTqjEwhXvPN0RAlTZAJ9jmPQQuqNLBa5ntwkvzIWd4vAoqACfYtla t8gftXXs3/orBcwMBZgte1o= =lcJr -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Learning Manual TOC missing subsubsubsections
The subsubsubsections are not present in LM toc. Is this intentional? Thanks, Bert ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
