Le dimanche 22 avril 2007 à 21:27 +0300, Till Rettig a écrit : > Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > > I would leave the 1.6 picture versions (showing incorrect output) > > alone, and upgrade all the other examples (showing what it should be > > like) to 2.11 or 2.10, if possible. > > > I would also leave alone the pictures showing incorrect output where > you have put the benchmarking > numbers. But I can try importing the existing pngs of the examples > (the Cello suite and the Schubert song) > removing their text and replacing it by svg text. Let's see how the > output looks like (online on the screen > the resolution cannot be good anyways). But this is for the versions > how they used to be (the bad output), since > they have comments written to them. > I can try how the actual output looks like for the other examples. > Let's then see what we will take and how we will > change the site. I would actually like to see the second benchmarking > example (the Schubert song) being directly > included into the essay as it is somehow looking so much better in > comparison (and showing much more features > than a single line polyphonic notation). There is also the point > mentioned about the optical font sizes -- wouldn't it > be good to have a pdf showing the same piece in two different font > sizes which show the difference? I would put this then > into the typography-features chapter.
> I will probably start with the picture work only after next week. Good ideas, IMHO you can go ahead on this. Cheers John _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
