On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 12:16:00PM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote: > > On 4/24/10 11:58 AM, "Mark Polesky" <markpole...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > I'd rather > > * reduce NR 5.6 to a tiny stub with a cross-reference to > > EX 2.1 > > * reword EX 2.1 to match the more newbie-friendly tone of > > NR 5.6 > > > > Any objections to this idea? > > Yes!
Carl knows more about this stuff than me, so I'm abstaining. > > By the way, what's the proper abbreviation for "Extending"? > > EL, as far as I can see. Short for Extending LilyPond. With the new (well, a year old) doc organization, as found on the new (kind-of) website, I've been trying to refer to docs by their one-word names. Notation, Extending, Learning, etc. That way nobody can accuse us of confusing people by shortening names. I know that two years ago, I argued on the opposite side of this and IIRC everybody argued in favor of not using abbreviations, so be happy; you've won me over. :) (as long as I don't have to type Notation Reference all the time, that is. I'm happy with Notation. Don't push for the second word) As with many parts of Contributors, "Documentation files" is out of date. No systematic rewrite/review is planned until 2.14 is out. And I wouldn't support such a review until we're certain that the basic workflow (1, parts of 2, etc) is well-described, and that definitely isn't the case right now. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
