On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 23:40:34 +0200 "Valentin Villenave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/4/3, Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > c2\upbow > > c2\downbow > > Seems consistent to me... Do you mean you don't like this sentence? \upbow is listed in Appendix B.something. How to use articulations is listed in NR 1.3.something. If we give the above example in NR 2.whatever, we have duplicated material in the docs. Now, it might be *acceptable* duplication. In this case, it probably /is/ warrented. But we should be clear that this is duplicated material. Why does this matter? Well, suppose that we change the way that something in NR 1.x works. We update the docs in 1.x. However, if material in NR 1 is duplicated throughout NR 2 as well, then we need to change it in all those places as well. This is particularly difficult if the doc editor isn't familiar with the instruments at hand. Special noteheads are a perfect example: if you're not familiar with advanced string music, why on earth would you (as doc editor) think to look in NR 2.x to update instructions on using <c f\harmonic>4 ? With LSR and people submitting snippets there, we can hopefully reduce these problems. Again, I'm not saying that we absolutely must not have any duplication at all... I'm just saying that we should consider these issues. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
