Re: GDP: fourth rearrangement

Valentin Villenave wrote: 2007/9/14, Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Err... why? What's the difference between looking at a list of markup commands in section 8.1.8 or 1.8.3 or Appendix M ? There's none. Appendix aren't meant to contain daily vital stuff, that's all :) What, like a li

Re: GDP: fourth rearrangement

On 9/14/07, Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Neil Puttock wrote: > > On 9/14/07, *Graham Percival* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > wrote: > > > No; we should use "staff" and "staves". One of the instructions for > the > > Trivial/Easy will be to fix any suc

Re: GDP: fourth rearrangement

2007/9/14, Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Err... why? What's the difference between looking at a list of markup > commands in section 8.1.8 or 1.8.3 or Appendix M ? There's none. Appendix aren't meant to contain daily vital stuff, that's all :) > I mean, yes, we plan on improving all se

Re: GDP: fourth rearrangement

Neil Puttock wrote: On 9/14/07, *Graham Percival* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: No; we should use "staff" and "staves". One of the instructions for the Trivial/Easy will be to fix any such mistakes. Hmm... I'm detecting a distinctly American bias here. As a

Re: GDP: fourth rearrangement

On 9/14/07, Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Mats Bengtsson wrote: > > - You have a much better feeling for the English language than I do, but > > do you think that we should keep the current mixture of "staff" and > > "stave" > > to denote the same thing, for example in the subsec

Re: GDP: fourth rearrangement

Valentin Villenave wrote: 2007/9/14, Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: As Valentin said; the markup commands are even more of a reference. Hmm... actually, what about moving these into an Appendix? Agreed, but if we do, we'll have to improve the actual markup manual section, so that users

Re: GDP: fourth rearrangement

2007/9/14, Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > As Valentin said; the markup commands are even more of a reference. > Hmm... actually, what about moving these into an Appendix? Agreed, but if we do, we'll have to improve the actual markup manual section, so that users only exceptionally have to

Re: GDP: fourth rearrangement

Mats Bengtsson wrote: - You have a much better feeling for the English language than I do, but do you think that we should keep the current mixture of "staff" and "stave" to denote the same thing, for example in the subsection titles within "Staff notation"? No; we should use "staff" and "s

Re: GDP: fourth rearrangement

On 9/14/07, Valentin Villenave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2007/9/14, Mats Bengtsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > - In Rhythms, I would like to rearrange the order a bit, to put the most > > common aspects at the top. For example: > > Yes, this is precisely what I thought when I first read your pl

Re: GDP: fourth rearrangement

2007/9/14, Mats Bengtsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > - In Rhythms, I would like to rearrange the order a bit, to put the most > common aspects at the top. For example: Yes, this is precisely what I thought when I first read your plan Graham; that's almost funny to find a long list of more and more

Re: GDP: fourth rearrangement

Looks great! A few minor details: - In Rhythms, I would like to rearrange the order a bit, to put the most common aspects at the top. For example: 1.2 Rhythms 1.2.1 Writing rhythms + Durations + Augmentation dots + Tuplets

Re: GDP: fourth rearrangement

On 9/13/07, Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Based on the feedback, it seems that most users would vastly prefer > something like this? > http://lilypondwiki.tuxfamily.org/index.php?title=Doc > > Numbered titles are new HTML pages; un-numbered titles are on the same > HTML page. > > Sec

GDP: fourth rearrangement

Based on the feedback, it seems that most users would vastly prefer something like this? http://lilypondwiki.tuxfamily.org/index.php?title=Doc Numbered titles are new HTML pages; un-numbered titles are on the same HTML page. Sections 1.9 through 1.16 weren't put into the same arrangement, but