[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: broken links for "next section in reading order"
From: |
Mark Polesky |
Subject: |
Re: broken links for "next section in reading order" |
Date: |
Fri, 21 May 2010 09:54:38 -0700 (PDT) |
Graham Percival wrote:
>> Can the @menu be simply 'Using the spanner-interface',
>> ditto @unnumberedsubsubsec (sans Tex markups)?
>
> It must be exactly the same as the @node name, which
> cannot have things like @code in it.
Yes and no. It must have exactly the same as the @node
name, but there seems to be no restriction on the use of
fixed-width commands like @code. In changing-defaults.itely
(line 3138), we have:
http://git.sv.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=lilypond.git;a=blob;f=Documentation/notation/changing-defaults.itely#l3138
* * * * * * * * * *
@menu
* Setting @code{X-offset} and @code{Y-offset} directly::
* Using the @code{side-position-interface}::
* Using the @code{self-alignment-interface}::
* Using the @code{break-alignable-interface}::
@end menu
@node Setting @code{X-offset} and @code{Y-offset} directly
@unnumberedsubsubsec Setting @code{X-offset} and @code{Y-offset} directly
* * * * * * * * * *
And the "next" links for these nodes work fine in the online
docs:
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.13/Documentation/notation/aligning-objects
- Mark
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", (continued)
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", Graham Percival, 2010/05/21
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", Francisco Vila, 2010/05/21
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", Graham Percival, 2010/05/21
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", Francisco Vila, 2010/05/21
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", Graham Percival, 2010/05/21
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", Jean-Charles Malahieude, 2010/05/21
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", Mark Polesky, 2010/05/21
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", Graham Percival, 2010/05/21
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", James Lowe, 2010/05/21
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", Graham Percival, 2010/05/21
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order",
Mark Polesky <=
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", Graham Percival, 2010/05/23
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", Trevor Daniels, 2010/05/24
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", Mark Polesky, 2010/05/24
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", Graham Percival, 2010/05/24
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", James Lowe, 2010/05/26
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", Graham Percival, 2010/05/29
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", James Lowe, 2010/05/31