On 1/2/09 2:32 AM, "Trevor Daniels" <t.dani...@treda.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Carl D. Sorensen wrote Thursday, January 01, 2009 10:52 PM
>
>> On 1/1/09 11:25 AM, "Trevor Daniels" <t.dani...@treda.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> I think we already have clear standards for revision under GOP -- they're
>> the same as for the GDP. Unless you are proposing different standards for
>> the LM and the NR. If that's the case, then ignore my comments, because
>> I'd
>> be fine with your standards if they apply only to the LM. If they apply
>> to
>> the NR, I think it would be a mistake to undo what we did with the GDP.
>>
>> So ignore the rest of my comments if you intend them to apply to the LM
>> only.
>
> Yes, NR 1 & 2 are fine. I was suggesting a slight variation
> on them for the LM and later chapters of the NR, since here
> a lot of the text does not need to be subdivided or ToC'd.
> The formatting of NR 1 & 2 is clear; it is the rest of the
> manual and the LM which is rather variable at present and I
> wanted to have a clear policy written down before these sections
> are firmed up.
I think we should maintain the NR standards throughout the NR. For example,
NR 6 is currently *not* organized according to the NR standards, so there
are places where an additional menu layer needs to be added. But I had the
same problem when writing chords.itely, and I think the resulting
consistency in the manual is well worth maintaining.
Carl
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
