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
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 noteheads
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
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
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
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
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 quite
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 rest
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 containing
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
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 one big
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 picture as a
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 the
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 documentation,
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
21 matches
Mail list logo
