David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> writes: > Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> writes: > >> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 07:00:27PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote: >>> Reinhold Kainhofer <reinh...@kainhofer.com> writes: >>> >>> > However, even for HTML we need some kind of line width so that we can >>> > line-break all lilypond snippets. >>> >>> That line width should be based on a pixel width (1024 is probably >>> reasonably). It is nonsensical to have it based on a paper size. >> >> We want the line widths to look the same in the HTML as in the >> pdfs. > > Why? > >> Also, we don't want to insist that people use a full-screen window >> with at least 1024 pixels -- or rather, given the left-hand navbar, >> that would require at least a full-screen window at 1280 pixels or so. > > So make a different HTML-related decision. > >>> If lilypond-book calls texi2pdf in the course of generating HTML, >>> that is a bug. >> >> No, that is correct and working as desired. > > Why would that be desirable? Why should the HTML documentation be made > to look different on a system with a different paper width setting for > PDF? > > That does not make sense.
Or why should the HTML documentation suddenly be formatted differently once a GNU/Linux user chooses to install TeX for some reason? -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
