George, On 10 December 2011 17:45, George_ <[email protected]> wrote: > > > pkx166h-2 wrote: >> >> George, >> >> On 30 November 2011 22:16, George Xu <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Oops, sorry. 2.14.2. I guess that explains why \auto-footnote doesn't >>> work, but it doesn't help much... ... > I agree, the 2.15 docs seem to have it documented much better. Just > wondering, though, is there a way to get a body \markup footnote to look > like a top-level markup footnote? > > Also, if I may propose a small change to the docs, I think it should > explicitly say that body markups are treated as grobs. I know that it says > that top-level markups are treated differently, but I think it should point > out a bit clearer how other markups are handled, especially when it says: > > "Of the two commands used to create automatic footnotes, use > \autoFootnoteGrob for individual grobs (i.e. note heads, stems, slurs, > dynamics including \markup when using TextScripts); and \autoFootnote for > annotating chorded notes." > > I don't feel that it's as clear as it could be at the moment, since the only > body markup that is footnoted is the rit. at the end of the 3rd example on > the page. So if it was changed to something like: > > "Of the two commands used to create automatic footnotes, use > \autoFootnoteGrob for individual grobs (i.e. note heads, stems, slurs, > dynamics, and \markup when using TextScripts); and \autoFootnote for > annotating chorded notes." > > I feel it would be much clearer. Change in bold.
I've done this as you suggested. Thanks for the input. It should appear in the next dev release. -- -- James _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
