Re: GDP: flattening the manual to two layers?
On 11.09.2007 (06:41), Trevor Bača wrote: Hey Graham, hey everyone, The GDP discussion has been extremely interesting and I think I've caught up on most of the threads. But I'm not certain so feel free to tell me if this topic has already come up. Question: has anyone suggested replacing the three-layer chapter / section / section structure with a two-layer chapter / section structure? The major sections are extremely useful and have, importantly, self-evident titles; but I've never felt that grouping the major sections into basic, decorating, instrument-specific etc really buys anything ... it's always going to be quite arbitrary as to what counts as basic versus decorating versus text, IMO, so maybe best to just kill the false disctinctions. That would leave us with a 20 or 30 chapter manual, which makes perfect sense for something like a notation reference for an engraving system (again IMO). I really second this, and it also seems to be perfectly in line with the overall intention of the rewrite. If all the tutorial stuff is kept separate from the manual, there is no need for that kind of arbitrary distinctions between basic and advanced etc. that Trevor mentions. Eyolf -- April 1 This is the day upon which we are reminded of what we are on the other three hundred and sixty-four. -- Mark Twain, Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: flattening the manual to two layers?
2007/9/11, Eyolf Østrem [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 11.09.2007 (06:41), Trevor Bača wrote: Question: has anyone suggested replacing the three-layer chapter / section / section structure with a two-layer chapter / section structure? I suggested avoiding subsubsections such as in current Vocal music. Graham is reluctant to make more chapters (still can't forget about his four letters answer in a private mail :) but as more and more users ask for structural changes, he might want to explain his reluctance... I personnally have mixed feelings about this. On one hand I suspect more chapters would make the manual less visibly structured (large chapters help understand the different kinds of logics in LilyPond), on the other hand I voted myself for independant Vocal and Ancient chapters. I guess the main goal is to make life easier for everyone. Since everybody, more or less, is using lyrics, I thought Vocal music should be very visible. But the same isn't (unfortunately) true for Ancient music... there is no need for that kind of arbitrary distinctions between basic and advanced etc. that Trevor mentions. Graham's whole point is to make Basic/Advanced/etc disappear anyway. There's quite a conscensus about that. Valentin ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: flattening the manual to two layers?
Valentin Villenave wrote: I suggested avoiding subsubsections such as in current Vocal music. Graham is reluctant to make more chapters (still can't forget about his four letters answer in a private mail :) Ok, come on, it was hilarious! But we really need to explain this. John and Valentin were dithering about Vocal music: should we leave it in instrument-specific, or make it a new chapter... but it's too short to be a chapter by itself... what to do, what to do...? My response: hmm, yeah... vocal music is tricky. If only we had a dedicated chapter for putting words on the page... especially if we had a new, dedicated chapter, that was much shorter than the other chapters... we could give that chapter a nice short name, like word, or maybe something else with four letters... Poor Valentin thought I was swearing at him*. I, of course, was referring to the new chapter Text. * in English, most swearwords have four letters; the phrase four-letter words generally** refers to swearwords. ** one of my conductors make jokes about this: no, no! You're playing loud, and `loud' is a four-letter word. Think `heroic' or `strong' instead! No four-letter words in this orchestra! Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: flattening the manual to two layers?
2007/9/11, Graham Percival [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Ok, come on, it was hilarious! But we really need to explain this. Yes, that made me laugh quite a while indeed... Poor Valentin thought I was swearing at him*. I, of course, was referring to the new chapter Text. The truth is, I had no idea you were actually refering to something! Now, don't tell me you were trying to avoid the ambiguity... :) However, the GDP is creating quite a storm on both -user and -devel; I try to keep up but we will soon need some strong points. For instance, you could open a new thread and yell in the Subject field No new chapter will be allowed under 5000 lines of texinfo code!!! (come on, you know how to yell, don't you :) Because in case you didn't notice, everybody seems to have suddenly awaken; lots of users are asking for either longer subsections or shorter chapters (which is indeed kind of a paradox). Every one has good points, strong arguments no matter what's his point of view... Frankly, I don't know if you realize what you've started ;-) Cheers, Valentin ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
