On 1/3/09 4:16 AM, "Trevor Daniels" wrote:
>
>
> Carl D. Sorensen wrote Friday, January 02, 2009 7:56 PM
>
>> I'd be in favor of a policy that says the equivalent of the following:
>>
>> "Each chapter has a defined section structure.
>>
>> The structure consists of chapter, section, and s
Carl D. Sorensen wrote Friday, January 02, 2009 7:56 PM
I'd be in favor of a policy that says the equivalent of the following:
"Each chapter has a defined section structure.
The structure consists of chapter, section, and subsection.
If subsubsections are desired, they should be unnumbered,
Graham Percival Saturday, January 03, 2009 4:01 AM
On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 12:56:18PM -0700, Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
On 1/2/09 12:30 PM, "Trevor Daniels" wrote:
> I agree; that's why it is important to set out the standards
> clearly and to ensure they are consistent with clarity. Look
>
On 1/2/09 9:01 PM, "Graham Percival" wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 12:56:18PM -0700, Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
>>
>> On 1/2/09 12:30 PM, "Trevor Daniels" wrote:
>>
>>> I agree; that's why it is important to set out the standards
>>> clearly and to ensure they are consistent with clarity.
On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 12:56:18PM -0700, Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
>
> On 1/2/09 12:30 PM, "Trevor Daniels" wrote:
>
> > I agree; that's why it is important to set out the standards
> > clearly and to ensure they are consistent with clarity. Look
> > at chapter 3.
Mao. I only just noticed that
On 1/2/09 12:30 PM, "Trevor Daniels" wrote:
>
>
> Carl D. Sorensen wrote Friday, January 02, 2009 1:44 PM
>
>> On 1/2/09 2:32 AM, "Trevor Daniels" wrote:
>>>
>>> Carl D. Sorensen wrote Thursday, January 01, 2009 10:52 PM
>>>
On 1/1/09 11:25 AM, "Trevor Daniels" wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes,
Carl D. Sorensen wrote Friday, January 02, 2009 1:44 PM
On 1/2/09 2:32 AM, "Trevor Daniels" wrote:
Carl D. Sorensen wrote Thursday, January 01, 2009 10:52 PM
On 1/1/09 11:25 AM, "Trevor Daniels" wrote:
I think we already have clear standards for revision under GOP --
they're
the sam
On 1/2/09 2:32 AM, "Trevor Daniels" wrote:
>
>
> Carl D. Sorensen wrote Thursday, January 01, 2009 10:52 PM
>
>> On 1/1/09 11:25 AM, "Trevor Daniels" wrote:
>
>>
>> I think we already have clear standards for revision under GOP -- they're
>> the same as for the GDP. Unless you are propo
Graham Percival wrote Thursday, January 01, 2009 9:26 PM
Much of the LM was written before this policy was instated,
so other forms tend to be used there, like @subsubheading
and others which just use a @bo...@italic{..} one line
paragraph, and as the LM hasn't yet been revised these
non-stand
Carl D. Sorensen wrote Thursday, January 01, 2009 10:52 PM
On 1/1/09 11:25 AM, "Trevor Daniels" wrote:
Graham
During GDP we experimented with various headings for
the levels below @subsection and I thought we had
standardised on @unnumberedsubsubsec with @node and
a menu entry. At least t
On Thu, Jan 01, 2009 at 03:52:42PM -0700, Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
>
> On 1/1/09 11:25 AM, "Trevor Daniels" wrote:
>
> > During GDP we experimented with various headings for
> > the levels below @subsection and I thought we had
> > standardised on @unnumberedsubsubsec with @node and
> > a menu en
On 1/1/09 11:25 AM, "Trevor Daniels" wrote:
> Graham
>
> During GDP we experimented with various headings for
> the levels below @subsection and I thought we had
> standardised on @unnumberedsubsubsec with @node and
> a menu entry. At least this is used in pitches, which
> I thought was the
On Thu, Jan 01, 2009 at 06:25:22PM -, Trevor Daniels wrote:
> During GDP we experimented with various headings for
> the levels below @subsection and I thought we had
> standardised on @unnumberedsubsubsec with @node and
> a menu entry. At least this is used in pitches, which I thought was the
Message -
From: "Graham Percival"
To: "Trevor Daniels"
Cc: "Reinhold Kainhofer" ;
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 1:04 AM
Subject: Re: Learning Manual TOC missing subsubsubsections
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 11:45:38AM -, Trevor Daniels wrote:
Graham Perciva
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 11:45:38AM -, Trevor Daniels wrote:
>
> Graham Percival wrote Monday, December 29, 2008 12:31 AM
>
>> I see sub^3 in LM 3.3.4. Those are the only ones, though.
>
> Are you sure? I can't find any in fundamental.itely.
Line 2011. Yes, they're @unnumberedsubsubsec rathe
Reinhold Kainhofer wrote Monday, December 29, 2008 12:47 AM
Am Montag, 29. Dezember 2008 01:32:17 schrieb Bertalan Fodor:
Reinhold Kainhofer írta:
> Am Montag, 29. Dezember 2008 01:01:14 schrieb Bertalan Fodor:
>> The subsubsubsections are not present in LM toc.
>
> Which subsubsubsections are
Graham Percival wrote Monday, December 29, 2008 12:31 AM
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 01:25:37AM +0100, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Montag, 29. Dezember 2008 01:01:14 schrieb Bertalan Fodor:
> The subsubsubsections are not present in LM toc.
Which
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Montag, 29. Dezember 2008 01:32:17 schrieb Bertalan Fodor:
> Reinhold Kainhofer írta:
> > Am Montag, 29. Dezember 2008 01:01:14 schrieb Bertalan Fodor:
> >> The subsubsubsections are not present in LM toc.
> >
> > Which subsubsubsections are you tal
Yes, I'm talking about these headlines as in the NR they are included in
the toc.
Reinhold Kainhofer írta:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Montag, 29. Dezember 2008 01:01:14 schrieb Bertalan Fodor:
The subsubsubsections are not present in LM toc.
Which subsubsubsect
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 01:25:37AM +0100, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Am Montag, 29. Dezember 2008 01:01:14 schrieb Bertalan Fodor:
> > The subsubsubsections are not present in LM toc.
>
> Which subsubsubsections are you talking about exactly?
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 01:01:14AM +0100, Bertalan Fodor wrote:
> The subsubsubsections are not present in LM toc. Is this intentional?
This might be a "version of texi2html" thing; I can't find the ToC
for the LM at all on lilypond.org. On kainhofer it looks fine:
http://kainhofer.com/~lilypond/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Montag, 29. Dezember 2008 01:01:14 schrieb Bertalan Fodor:
> The subsubsubsections are not present in LM toc.
Which subsubsubsections are you talking about exactly?
I'm only seeing subsubsections (e.g. "2.1.1 Compiling a file") and some
headlines
The subsubsubsections are not present in LM toc. Is this intentional?
Thanks,
Bert
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
23 matches
Mail list logo
