Re: GDP: consistency in @q @qq @samp @code

[Graham Percival]

Kurt Kroon wrote:
> Does TeXInfo give you access to just that part, or do you have to make
> changes in a global style sheet, which then affects all outputs (not just
> the HTML)?

As far as I know, we _just_ change the HTML style sheet.  I don't think 
we can change the output for other formats.  (I admit that I haven't 
looked this up, though)

> Again, a semantics vs. appearance issue -- many of such terms aren't used in
> sentences that define *what they are*, as opposed to *how they're used.
> They're samples of use or input (for lack of a better term) that a musician
> would use to produce a more nuanced performance.
>
> I've just convinced myself that @var is the best choice. If it doesn't cause
> you heartburn in info or PDF, then it has my vote.

ARGH, I'm an idiot!  We should define our own macro.

@music{cresc}

That way we can define whatever output we want.  For PDF/HTML, we use 
@var{}, and in info, we use... well, whatever.

Suggestions about the name?  @music{} might be a little bit /too/ 
general... @musicterm{} might be better.  Or @notationterm{} ?

> To summarize by modifying your original list:
>
> @code{}: actual lilypond code or property/context names.
> @samp{}: ditto, for single-letter identifiers (Werner's suggestion)
>
> @var{}: refers to pieces of notation, such as: @var{crescendo} is
> often abbreviated as @var{cresc.}. (My suggestion, based on the somewhat
> strained analogy that musicians use this input to inform their
> performances.)
>
> @q{}: used for `vague' terms in English (and other natural languages).
>
> @qq{}: only for actual quotes -- i.e. "he said" or "she wrote".

Other than the possibility of using @musicterm{} instead of @var{} (but 
producing the same output), I like this.

Cheers,
- Graham