Re: GDP: NR Specification

[Graham Percival]

Trevor Daniels wrote:
> I do too.  I wonder if it might be useful to discuss
> and find a consensus on what the purpose of the NR is
> in rather more detail?  Here's a strawman specification
> to knock about if people think a specification might
> be useful to guide documentation writers in the future.

Let do this in a slightly different manner.  Here's what the policy
current says:

* Notation Reference: a (hopefully complete) description of
  LilyPond input notation.  Some material from here may be
  duplicated in the Learning Manual (for teaching).  The material is
  presented in an approximate order of increasing difficulty, but
  the goal is _not_ to provide a step-by-step learning environment.
  For example, all material under "Pitches" should remain in that
  section, even though microtonal accidentals may seem more advanced
  than info about clefs or time signatures -- "Pitches" should be a
  one-stop reference about the pitch portion of notes.  This section
  is written in formal technical writing style.

Users are not expected to read this manual from start to finish.
However, they should be familiar with the material in the Learning
Manual (particularly ``Fundamental Concepts''), so do not repeat
that material in this book.  Also, you should assume that users
know what the notation means; explaining musical concepts happens
in the Music Glossary.



Based on the recent discussions, what should change in the written policy?

Cheers,
- Graham