Mark Polesky wrote Tuesday, August 11, 2009 7:18 PM
My "concept glossary" idea is now called a "technical glossary". I thought the name was fine when it was suggested, but now I'm realizing something -- I'd also like it to list terms that are not specifically dealing with LilyPond *internals*. Such as: the archives the LSR the tracker Rietveld Savannah These include words in the LP "vernacular". So when someone comes across one of these terms in the archives for example, they'll have a place to look up the definition. I believe that a central location for such jargon definitions will be very valuable. If they don't fit in a "technical glossary" than we should change the name of the glossary. Because I don't expect that anyone is in favor of adding yet another appendix? Although an argument could be made for compartmentalizing the resources... Thoughts?
These terms don't really belong in the Notation Reference, do they? Perhaps we need to think again whether this appendix, whatever it is called, is intended to help users or developers. If the intention is solely to help new developers then the CG is the right place. I was hoping we could also include terms which helped users, hence I placed it in the NR, but I think some of these terms would stretch an NR appendix too far. One solution would be to have a Technical Glossary in the NR specifically for users and a Concepts Glossary in the CG specifically for developers. But I'm not even sure these terms are suitable for a glossary. They should really be explained in the main body of the AU (first two) and CG (last three). Trevor _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
