[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RFC: new vertical layout engine
From: |
Graham Percival |
Subject: |
Re: RFC: new vertical layout engine |
Date: |
Sun, 26 Jul 2009 02:27:04 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 08:20:45AM -0400, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
> Hi Werner (et al,),
>
>> Please use two spaces after a full stop in documentation strings for
>> consistence.
>
> Since this is incorrect typographical practice, and Lilypond prides
> itself on beautiful typography, I'm surprised this is the standard in
> the docs — why/how was this decision made?
I made the decision, since it's my father's religious preference
and I follow his grammatical, typographical, and spelling rules
unless presented with overwhelming evidence to the contrary[1]. I
therefore offer to engage you with a robust round of fisticuffs in
order to settle the matter. :)
[1] the only thing that comes to mind at the moment is using the
American "z" in words rather than the British "s". I just think
that "-ize" looks cooler than "-ise".
I could ask him for references tomorrow if you want.
Cheers,
- Graham
PS this debate includes a built-in compromise: since I mostly look
at the docs in texinfo form, I don't notice the atrocities that
HTML performs on my carefully-crafted double-spaced periods. So
if we continue with the status quo (double-space in the texinfo),
you single-space heathens can get the spacing you want while
reading the docs, while I get the spacing I want while reviewing
the doc source.
PPS like most religious beliefs, I can't understand why on earth
anybody would propose single-spaced sentences. They look so ugly!
"Hey guys! Let's deliberately write stuff. Stuff that is ugly. And
harder to read. And all-round badder."
- Re: RFC: new vertical layout engine, (continued)
- Re: RFC: new vertical layout engine, Werner LEMBERG, 2009/07/25
- Re: RFC: new vertical layout engine, Trevor Daniels, 2009/07/25
- Re: RFC: new vertical layout engine, Anthony W. Youngman, 2009/07/25
- Re: RFC: new vertical layout engine, David Kastrup, 2009/07/26
- Re: RFC: new vertical layout engine, Kieren MacMillan, 2009/07/26
- Re: RFC: new vertical layout engine, David Kastrup, 2009/07/26
- Re: RFC: new vertical layout engine, Kieren MacMillan, 2009/07/26
- Re: RFC: new vertical layout engine, Graham Percival, 2009/07/26
- Re: RFC: new vertical layout engine, Kieren MacMillan, 2009/07/26
- Re: RFC: new vertical layout engine, Graham Percival, 2009/07/26
- Re: RFC: new vertical layout engine,
Graham Percival <=
- Re: RFC: new vertical layout engine, Kieren MacMillan, 2009/07/26
- Re: RFC: new vertical layout engine, Mark Knoop, 2009/07/26
- Re: RFC: new vertical layout engine, Anthony W. Youngman, 2009/07/26
Re: RFC: new vertical layout engine, Joe Neeman, 2009/07/14
- Re: RFC: new vertical layout engine, Cameron Horsburgh, 2009/07/26
- Re: RFC: new vertical layout engine, Joe Neeman, 2009/07/26
- Re: RFC: new vertical layout engine, Neil Puttock, 2009/07/26
- Re: RFC: new vertical layout engine, Joe Neeman, 2009/07/26
- Re: RFC: new vertical layout engine, Neil Puttock, 2009/07/27
- Re: RFC: new vertical layout engine, Joe Neeman, 2009/07/30