Just one general comment for the moment: I'd rather propose longer than
shorter subsections. I think that there already is too much fragmentation
at some places for the moment, which means that you never get the chance
to see the full picture as a reader. We shouldn't expect a user to keep
reading several consecutive subsections, especially not in a reference
manual, where you expect to get an answer to your question by just looking
at a single subsection (=web page in the on-line manual).
/Mats
Quoting Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Rune Zedeler wrote:
Graham Percival skrev:
LIMITED DISCUSSION
To keep discussion focused and as un-confused as possible, this is a
discussion *only* about the arrangement of subsections. Other parts of
GDP will be discussed later.
This means:
- propose new/changed chapter/sections
- propose renamings of chapter/sections
- *do not* discuss new subsections or renamings of subsections. That
will come later.
Sorry I do not understand what you mean.
How can we discuss "arrangement of subsections" without discussing
new subsections or renaming of subsections?
Like this:
"6.1.8 rests and 6.1.9 should not be part of 6.1 pitches, because
they're not real notes. Move them to 6.3 rhythms instead"
or
"9.3 Vocal music is too large. Split it up into:
9.3 Adding lyrics
9.3.1 Setting simple songs
9.3.2 Entering lyrics.
...
and
9.4 Multiple stanzas and aligning lyrics
9.4.1 foo
9.4.2 bar
...
Also, 9.3.8 Ambitus should be moved into chapter 7"
In other words, treat the subsections as atoms (indivisible parts)
and form them into new structures.
The reasons:
- I don't want new proposed subsections right now, since writing new
docs takes a lot more work than rearranging docs. We'll tackle this
step in about a week, once I know how much help we have
- I don't want renamed subsections yet, so that it's easy for
everybody to compare the new arrangement with the current one. When
we start renaming subsections, it gets much more complicated.
Btw: Chapters are the ones with one number, sections are the ones
with two numbers and subsections are the ones with tre numbers,
right?
Yes, sorry. I should have explained that.
Cheers,
- Graham
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
