Re: duplicated material in docs (music functions)

[Graham Percival]

On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 12:16:00PM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
> 
> On 4/24/10 11:58 AM, "Mark Polesky" <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > I'd rather
> > * reduce NR 5.6 to a tiny stub with a cross-reference to
> >   EX 2.1
> > * reword EX 2.1 to match the more newbie-friendly tone of
> >   NR 5.6
> > 
> > Any objections to this idea?
> 
> Yes!

Carl knows more about this stuff than me, so I'm abstaining.

> > By the way, what's the proper abbreviation for "Extending"?
> 
> EL, as far as I can see.  Short for Extending LilyPond.

With the new (well, a year old) doc organization, as found on the
new (kind-of) website, I've been trying to refer to docs by their
one-word names.  Notation, Extending, Learning, etc.  That way
nobody can accuse us of confusing people by shortening names.  I
know that two years ago, I argued on the opposite side of this and
IIRC everybody argued in favor of not using abbreviations, so be
happy; you've won me over.  :)
 (as long as I don't have to type Notation Reference all the time,
that is.  I'm happy with Notation.  Don't push for the second
word)

As with many parts of Contributors, "Documentation files" is out
of date.  No systematic rewrite/review is planned until 2.14 is
out.  And I wouldn't support such a review until we're certain
that the basic workflow (1, parts of 2, etc) is well-described,
and that definitely isn't the case right now.

Cheers,
- Graham