[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: doc reorg (especially Usage) possibly finished
From: |
Graham Percival |
Subject: |
Re: doc reorg (especially Usage) possibly finished |
Date: |
Sun, 27 Sep 2009 19:08:16 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 07:55:32PM +0200, John Mandereau wrote:
> Le dimanche 27 septembre 2009 à 17:37 +0100, Graham Percival a écrit :
> > As far as I'm concerned, as long as newbies know that it's
> > *possible* to do all sorts of funky stuff with this magical scheme
> > stuff, that's all they need to know.
> Certainly. However, when we decide time has come to significantly
> expand this appendix and it gets too big to remain an appendix, we'll
> have to reword the reading guidelines so the reader doesn't feel he
> should even read this chapter,
I guess. We'd also need to reword the intro to Notation, since
that "assumes the reader has read and understood the Learning
manual".
> > Was that seriously the reason? I don't follow... I mean, the html
> > filename is "LilyPond-index.html".
>
> So, why do you criticize the name "LilyPond index"? The constraint is
> that we must have a node name other than "Index", otherwise the splitted
> HTML page name would clash with Top node HTML page index.html (not on
> Unix systems, but on Windows).
I'm wondering if we can call them "Function index" and "Concept
index". Or something like that. It just seems weird to have a
"LilyPond index" for every manual.
Cheers,
- Graham
- doc reorg (especially Usage) possibly finished, Graham Percival, 2009/09/27
- Re: doc reorg (especially Usage) possibly finished, Carl Sorensen, 2009/09/27
- Re: lilypond programming manual, Graham Percival, 2009/09/28
- Re: lilypond programming manual, Carl Sorensen, 2009/09/28
- Re: lilypond programming manual, Trevor Daniels, 2009/09/28
Re: doc reorg (especially Usage) possibly finished, John Mandereau, 2009/09/27