[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GDP: flattening the manual to two layers?

From: Eyolf Østrem
Subject: Re: GDP: flattening the manual to two layers?
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:53:30 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.13cvs-muttng (2007-01-26)

On 11.09.2007 (06:41), Trevor Bača wrote:
> Hey Graham, hey everyone,
> The GDP discussion has been extremely interesting and I think I've
> caught up on most of the threads. But I'm not certain so feel free to
> tell me if this topic has already come up.
> Question: has anyone suggested replacing the three-layer chapter /
> section / section structure with a two-layer chapter / section
> structure? The major sections are extremely useful and have,
> importantly, self-evident titles; but I've never felt that grouping
> the major sections into "basic", "decorating", "instrument-specific"
> etc really buys anything ... it's always going to be quite arbitrary
> as to what counts as "basic" versus "decorating" versus "text", IMO,
> so maybe best to just kill the false disctinctions. That would leave
> us with a 20 or 30 chapter manual, which makes perfect sense for
> something like a notation reference for an engraving system (again
> IMO).

I really second this, and it also seems to be perfectly in line with
the overall intention of the rewrite. If all the tutorial stuff is
kept separate from the manual, there is no need for that kind of
arbitrary distinctions between basic and advanced etc. that Trevor


April 1

This is the day upon which we are reminded of what we are on the other three
hundred and sixty-four.
                -- Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar"

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]