On 1/3/09 4:16 AM, "Trevor Daniels" <t.dani...@treda.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Carl D. Sorensen wrote Friday, January 02, 2009 7:56 PM
>
>> I'd be in favor of a policy that says the equivalent of the following:
>>
>> "Each chapter has a defined section structure.
>>
>> The structure consists of chapter, section, and subsection.
>>
>> If subsubsections are desired, they should be unnumbered, and all
>> subsections in the chapter should include subsubsections.
>>
>> All substantive information in the chapter should be at the lowest section
>> level."
>
> Perfect! I'll subscribe to that.
>
>> IMO, if one part of chapter needs more headings than other parts, there's
>> probably a potential for reorganization.
>
> Yes; this is a good indicator.
>
>> Also, as I've looked more into it, I may want to recommend that NR 5 and
>> NR
>> 6 be combined (but I'm not sure yet).
>
> No, they should remain separate. Tweaks in NR 5 should not require
> any Scheme programming; those in NR 6 clearly do. Since Scheme
> programming will be a watershed for many users this is a valuable
> distinction which should be maintained.
I agree this is a strong reason for drawing a clear distinction between NR 5
and NR6, and it gives an unambiguous criterion for deciding where to place
things. So for now I will suspend my proposal. But I'm still retaining the
right to renew it if I believe I should. My own personal work style has me
using both NR5 and NR6 as an integrated pair as I work on things.
Thanks,
Carl
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
