Trevor Daniels wrote:
I do too. I wonder if it might be useful to discuss and find a consensus on what the purpose of the NR is in rather more detail? Here's a strawman specification to knock about if people think a specification might be useful to guide documentation writers in the future.
Let do this in a slightly different manner. Here's what the policy current says: * Notation Reference: a (hopefully complete) description of LilyPond input notation. Some material from here may be duplicated in the Learning Manual (for teaching). The material is presented in an approximate order of increasing difficulty, but the goal is _not_ to provide a step-by-step learning environment. For example, all material under "Pitches" should remain in that section, even though microtonal accidentals may seem more advanced than info about clefs or time signatures -- "Pitches" should be a one-stop reference about the pitch portion of notes. This section is written in formal technical writing style. Users are not expected to read this manual from start to finish. However, they should be familiar with the material in the Learning Manual (particularly ``Fundamental Concepts''), so do not repeat that material in this book. Also, you should assume that users know what the notation means; explaining musical concepts happens in the Music Glossary. Based on the recent discussions, what should change in the written policy? Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
