2008/10/1 Trevor Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Thanks for this. I'm happy with the reorganisation in general. As there is
> only one vocal "instrument" the standard layout for NR 2 does not apply
> here, so dropping the Common notation ... section is fine.
On second thought, I think maybe it might be needed... See below.
> There will not be many References for vocal music, as pretty well all of it
> is going to be in this section, but there should be one to
> @rlearning{Songs}, which gives a gentle introduction to some of the easier
> concepts. Maybe this should be near the top, rather than buried in section
> 2.1.1.4. Could the References be moved up? And it certainly must not be
> removed! Apart from the reference mentioned it should contain at least refs
> to the templates.
Hm, tricky. My problem is that this section does not really belong in
a section about Lyrics. Ideally, there would be a "common notation"
before that, and the "references" section would totally belong here.
But: what do you put in a "common notation for vocal music" section?
Besides -maybe- parlato noteheads?
> On formatting, please use @unnumberedsubsubsec rather than @subsubsection.
> This avoids the ugly four-element numbers and gives a better layout in html.
Oh, I have used numbered subsubsecs everywhere in NR 1.8! I'll change
them immediately.
> I've not pushed this, as I know nothing of translations, but I'm happy to do
> so if John says it's OK.
I have taken the liberty to push the new layout, since it didn't break
compiling as far as I could see.
He has pushed an update for .po strings in the meantime, but I'm
afraid the po strings now have to be updated again :-(
Cheers,
Valentin
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
