|
From: | James E. Bailey |
Subject: | Re: an LM update |
Date: | Mon, 23 Mar 2009 20:59:17 +0100 |
Am 23.03.2009 um 18:03 schrieb Trevor Daniels:
You know, I'd read the relevant sections before, but it didn't explain the @-commands too well, so I was left feeling like I hadn't learned anything I didn't already know. I also took a short look at the Texinfo link there, but that seemed like it would be far too much reading for what would amount to such a small change.James E. Bailey wrote Monday, March 23, 2009 4:45 PMAm 23.03.2009 um 16:48 schrieb Trevor Daniels:James E. Bailey wrote Monday, March 23, 2009 2:15 PMIn any event, hopefully this is an acceptable patch. Whether or not introduction of single-staff polyphony should be kept at this pointin the LM (since doing so does not follow Documentation policy) is adifferent conversation.The good news is the patch works fine and the docs still compile with it applied. So I've applied it and pushed it to origin/master. I can't say I'm wild about it, as it uses so many concepts which have not been introduced at that point, so it will probably be moved when I get back to working on the LM, but in an odd-numbered release I'm prepared to accept it.But, as I said before, I think that removing it altogether is also abad idea. Perhaps a simple warning that the section introducesseveral new concepts that haven't been fully explained with links to the appropriate sections that do explain them fully would be enough.Would you like to prepare another patch which does this? That would be an improvement.I don't really understand how to do links in I guess this is TexInfo (?) format.Yes:( Hardly the world's best mark-up language. There's an introduction to it in CG 3 which is sufficient for LP docs. (Actually I can't see the @ref{} command and friends there. Are they in the CG, Graham?)
Well, my attempt is attached. I don't really know if it works, but you can tell me that.I can write the paragraph explaining that it introduces concepts not yet discussed, and that it may be confusing. But the @ things just look funny to me.They're not too bad really. There are plenty of examples in the docs! Why not have a go at formatting your paragraph? All you need is an @ref{} to do a link to a section in the same manual. Just copy one of the examples. I'll check your patch through and make sure it compiles before pushing it to origin/master.
James
0002--modified-Documentation-user-tutorial.itely.patch
Description: Binary data
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |