Valentin Villenave wrote:
2007/12/4, Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
My idea now is to avoid all of that discussion by moving *all* of the
snippets into LSR. You can see two examples here:
Hmmm. Last time I checked, it was my idea but not yours (yet) :)
No, I thought of this before you got involved at all.
However, there's a downside here: LSR is currently *not* meant to be
ever translated in any way. This would be a major regression if we
moved many things from the (localized) docs to the (English-only) LSR.
AFAIK, most of the @commonprop aren't translated anyway, so this isn't
really a regression.
"since the snippet already has texinfo code, why not have them
automatically inserted directly into the compiled manuals"
The point is: snippets descriptions are currently not reliable. some
users use HTML tags, others don't, some users use long detailed
descriptions, while others don't, etc.
That's your problem, not mine. :)
Remember that I only care about "doc" snippets... and at the moment, I
only care about "pitches" + "doc" snippets. I doubt that I'm even going
to consider the other NR 1 snippets until the end of 2007.
As a matter of fact, I'm considering writing Sebastiano to see if it
would be possible (for LSR editors, at least) to input pure Texinfo
code in the snippets descriptions (I suspect this could easily be
done, since the backend is already native texinfo). If we ever
integrated snippets into the documentation, I'd gladly rewrite some
descriptions using texinfo tags for better docs integration.
Why? The only tags that you might (usefully) use in snippet
descriptions are <emph> and <code>. Those are *already* automatically
translated into texinfo.
I'll grant that somebody might want to use @ref{}, and that currently
doesn't work. I'm not convinced that this would ever really be
necessary, but if it is, we could work something out.
Cheers,
- Graham
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
