> I'm simply suggesting that we should use (or there should be a)
> Texi2XHMTL rather than Texi2HTML.
Ahh, this is something *completely* different :-) XHTML is fine -- the
closing tags (not necessary in HTML) are good for humans too, but XML
is normally far too verbose.
Werner
__
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Freitag, 3. Oktober 2008 schrieb Kieren MacMillan:
> Hi John,
>
> > XML is quite cumbersome to type by hand,
> > Texinfo is much easier to type because it's very concise.
>
> I'm simply suggesting that we should use (or there should be a)
> Texi2XHM
Hi John,
XML is quite cumbersome to type by hand,
Texinfo is much easier to type because it's very concise.
I'm simply suggesting that we should use (or there should be a)
Texi2XHMTL rather than Texi2HTML.
Cheers,
Kieren.
___
lilypond-devel mai
0n 2008/10/02 18:18 +0200, Eyolf Østrem wrote:
> On 02.10.2008 (12:01), Kieren MacMillan wrote:
> > Hi Reinhold,
> >
> >> Yes, texi2html creates HTML 4.01 ;-)
> >
> > That's a pretty darned good reason! =)
>
> ... for leaving behind this horrible beast called texinfo :)
>
> In addition to an xml
Valentin, you wrote Thursday, October 02, 2008 5:43 PM
2008/10/2 Trevor Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
OK. Below is one possible layout which seems to
work. Most of the stuff is under "Common", as
all the lyrics-specific notation is common. The
differences arise in how the lyrics are organi
On 02.10.2008 (12:01), Kieren MacMillan wrote:
> Hi Reinhold,
>
>> Yes, texi2html creates HTML 4.01 ;-)
>
> That's a pretty darned good reason! =)
... for leaving behind this horrible beast called texinfo :)
In addition to an xml-compliant format.
eyolf
--
"Ann and I will carry out this equi
Hi Reinhold,
Yes, texi2html creates HTML 4.01 ;-)
That's a pretty darned good reason! =)
So Are there any other reasons against HTML 4.01 other than
that it was specified a decade ago?
Sure… the main argument, of course, is that HTML 4.01 pages can't be
processed with XML tools (pa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Donnerstag, 2. Oktober 2008 schrieb Kieren MacMillan:
> Hi all,
>
> > The current docs are HTML 4.01
>
> Is there some good reason for this?
Yes, texi2html creates HTML 4.01 ;-)
> FTR, HTML 4.01 is nearly 11 years old… ;-)
So Are there any o
Hi all,
The current docs are HTML 4.01
Is there some good reason for this?
FTR, HTML 4.01 is nearly 11 years old… ;-)
Cheers,
Kieren.
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Donnerstag, 2. Oktober 2008 schrieb Patrick McCarty:
> Please disregard the patch I posted in the "WANTED: Design ..."
> thread, because this patch includes those updates.
I've commited this patch.
Am Donnerstag, 2. Oktober 2008 schrieb Francisco
2008/10/2 Trevor Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> It is to treat the different vocal styles such
> as Simple songs, part writing, chants, etc, as
> the equivalent of the different instruments in
> the other NR 2 sections. So this style layout
> would be something like:
>
> 2.1 Vocal music
> 2.1.1 C
2008/10/2 Trevor Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2.1 Vocal music
> 2.1.1 Common notation for vocals
> 2.1.2 Setting simple songs
> 2.1.3 Part writing
> 2.1.4 Setting chants
> 2.1.5 etc
>
> Then under Common notation for vocals
> there would be
>
> References for vocals
>
>
> and under each vocal
Valentin, you wrote Thursday, October 02, 2008 7:41 AM
2008/10/2 Trevor Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I agree it does not belong within any section, yet
at present it appears within 2.1.1 Entering lyrics.
As the only references we have so far identified
are one to the Learning Manual and one
Patrick McCarty wrote Thursday, October 02, 2008 8:41 AM
Subject: Re: NR 1.5 and 1.6 reviewed
On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 09:14:25AM +0200, Valentin Villenave wrote:
2008/10/2 Andrew Hawryluk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> In the third musical example under "Instrument names" (.itely lines
> 963–977), wh
2008/10/2 Francisco Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I cannot find this post, and I'm interested in you review of 1.5
> simultaneous. Where did you send to? Please, post me a copy, thank
> you.
It has been rejected by the mailing list since the attachments were too heavy.
Andrew's corrections have be
2008/10/2 Valentin Villenave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/10/2 Andrew Hawryluk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> After much delay, I finished reviewing the text of NR 1.5 and 1.6
>> (attached). Overall, it was very informative and well written. Here I
>> only mention those changes that warrant discussion, or
2008/10/2 Patrick McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hello,
>
> Please disregard the patch I posted in the "WANTED: Design ..."
> thread, because this patch includes those updates.
>
> I added closing `li' tags and removed the unnecessary ` '
> characters from the index pages.
Patrick,
Does this make
On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 09:14:25AM +0200, Valentin Villenave wrote:
> 2008/10/2 Andrew Hawryluk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > In the third musical example under "Instrument names" (.itely lines
> > 963–977), why is "Flute" not centered above "Clarinetti / in B(flat)"?
>
> I don't know.
lilypond-book u
2008/10/2 Andrew Hawryluk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> After much delay, I finished reviewing the text of NR 1.5 and 1.6
> (attached). Overall, it was very informative and well written. Here I
> only mention those changes that warrant discussion, or questions I
> had.
Great! If you don't know what to do
19 matches
Mail list logo
