RE: partial rearrangement done, technical problems
Graham Remember that I'm totally open to renaming this chapter name (if we keep it as a chapter). I'll do it as soon as I get something better than Purpose-specific notation. OK. No objection to keeping them if the heading is broadened. So I tried headings like esoteric topics, arcane incantations, and rejected them all. Going off to make a cup of coffee I asked my wife what she would suggest. She said instantly, Specialist topics or Topics for Specialists. I could add Specialist Notation or Notation for Specialists. Any of these any good? I prefer the last one. Trevor ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: partial rearrangement done, technical problems
On 22.09.2007 (11:09), Trevor Daniels wrote: Going off to make a cup of coffee I asked my wife what she would suggest. She said instantly, Specialist topics or Topics for Specialists. I could add Specialist Notation or Notation for Specialists. Any of these any good? I prefer the last one. I think your wife is a genius. I like it. I prefer Specialist notation because one doesn't have to be a specialist to need 'specialist notation'. Great idea. Case closed, as far as I'm concerned. Eyolf -- At the end of the money I always have some month left. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: partial rearrangement done, technical problems
2007/9/22, Eyolf Østrem [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 22.09.2007 (11:09), Trevor Daniels wrote: Going off to make a cup of coffee I asked my wife what she would suggest. She said instantly, Specialist topics or Topics for Specialists. I could add Specialist Notation or Notation for Specialists. Any of these any good? I prefer the last one. I think your wife is a genius. I like it. I prefer Specialist notation because one doesn't have to be a specialist to need 'specialist notation'. Great idea. Case closed, as far as I'm concerned. +1 for specialist notation I had proposed Specific Notation, but I guess it isn't very... specific :) Valentin ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: partial rearrangement done, technical problems
Trevor Daniels wrote: Going off to make a cup of coffee I asked my wife what she would suggest. She said instantly, Specialist topics or Topics for Specialists. I could add Specialist Notation or Notation for Specialists. Any of these any good? I prefer the last one. I agree with other people; you've got a smart wife. :) I prefer specialist notation; as Eyolf said, you don't need to be a specialist to write it. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
RE: partial rearrangement done, technical problems
Graham (late cc to list) GENERAL DISCUSSION - I still like the division of musical notation / instrument-specific? No? Nobody else? Well, yes - at least one other likes it. But only if every sub-section within it concerns an actual instrument, and the list of instruments is complete (at least as far as the instrument-specific parts of LP are concerned). So the sub-sections should not include Chord Names nor Ancient Notation - these should be sections in 1. Musical Notation. I don't like a the name Other instrument-specific. Just drop it and promote Orchestral Strings and Bagpipes to sub- sections. This section then becomes easily extensible in the future to include further instruments that also have instrument-specific notation. Why do I prefer it? Well, it separates out those parts of the manual which are of interest only if you are writing for that particular instrument. Others can simply ignore sections that don't concern them. In effect it shortens the manual without removing anything. - Assuming that the technical issues are solved, how do you want these merged subsections to look? Specifically, consider 1.2.3. Displaying rhythms. There's Time signature - @commonprop - @seealso - @refbugs Upbeats - @refbugs Unmetered music - @refbugs ... Automatic note splitting - @refbugs - @seealso Do you like this format, or would you prefer one @commonprop at the end of each page? Do you want links to LSR stuff at the end of each portion, or just one set of links at the bottom of the page? Assuming that the links to each of the sub-sections will take you to that sub-section within the page and not the top of the page, then I prefer this format. The bottom of the page is too far away for all the links to be there. ... and are you guys _sure_ you prefer the manual like this? Yes. Although I would prefer a click on, for example, 1.2 Rhythms to return a monster page containing all the contained sub-sections rather than just the TOC for that section. This would permit a more comprehensive search for anything that was to do with rhythms but which did not fall obviously in any of the sub-sections, for example hemiola (which actually appears nowhere). If this is technically possible and does not give rise to serious maintenance issues maybe this could be extended to chapters too. Cheers, - Graham Trevor (D) ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: partial rearrangement done, technical problems
Trevor Daniels wrote: Well, yes - at least one other likes it. But only if every sub-section within it concerns an actual instrument, and the list of instruments is complete (at least as far as the instrument-specific parts of LP are concerned). There's wide support (well, two people) for promoting Strings and Bagpipes as main sections, so I'll reinstate them. Remember that I'm totally open to renaming this chapter name (if we keep it as a chapter). I'll do it as soon as I get something better than Purpose-specific notation. So the sub-sections should not include Chord Names nor Ancient Notation - these should be sections in 1. Musical Notation. ... Why do I prefer it? Well, it separates out those parts of the manual which are of interest only if you are writing for that particular instrument. Others can simply ignore sections that don't concern them. In effect it shortens the manual without removing anything. I completely agree with this reasoning (that's why I did it in the first place)... but this applies to Ancient and Chord names. As a string player, I've never used that stuff, so IMO they make sense to be in chapter 2. Whatever we end up calling that chapter. If this is technically possible and does not give rise to serious maintenance issues maybe this could be extended to chapters too. In theory, it's technically possible. In practice, it isn't. Sorry. :( - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
