Kurt Kroon wrote:
Does TeXInfo give you access to just that part, or do you have to make
changes in a global style sheet, which then affects all outputs (not just
the HTML)?
As far as I know, we _just_ change the HTML style sheet. I don't think
we can change the output for other formats. (I admit that I haven't
looked this up, though)
Again, a semantics vs. appearance issue -- many of such terms aren't used in
sentences that define *what they are*, as opposed to *how they're used.
They're samples of use or input (for lack of a better term) that a musician
would use to produce a more nuanced performance.
I've just convinced myself that @var is the best choice. If it doesn't cause
you heartburn in info or PDF, then it has my vote.
ARGH, I'm an idiot! We should define our own macro.
@music{cresc}
That way we can define whatever output we want. For PDF/HTML, we use
@var{}, and in info, we use... well, whatever.
Suggestions about the name? @music{} might be a little bit /too/
general... @musicterm{} might be better. Or @notationterm{} ?
To summarize by modifying your original list:
@code{}: actual lilypond code or property/context names.
@samp{}: ditto, for single-letter identifiers (Werner's suggestion)
@var{}: refers to pieces of notation, such as: @var{crescendo} is
often abbreviated as @var{cresc.}. (My suggestion, based on the somewhat
strained analogy that musicians use this input to inform their
performances.)
@q{}: used for `vague' terms in English (and other natural languages).
@qq{}: only for actual quotes -- i.e. "he said" or "she wrote".
Other than the possibility of using @musicterm{} instead of @var{} (but
producing the same output), I like this.
Cheers,
- Graham
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
