Re: doc reorg (especially Usage) possibly finished

[Graham Percival]

On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 10:15:30AM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
> 
> On 9/27/09 6:57 AM, "Graham Percival" <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > 1) Learning B. Scheme tutorial -- do we want to keep this here, or
> > integrate into Learning 4?  Or _possibly_ make a Learning 5
> > Programming inside LilyPond?
> 
> I don't think we want to put this in the main body of the Learning Manual,
> since we ask readers to read the LM cover to cover.  I think that having it
> as an appendix is the right thing to do.  But I like the name Programming
> inside LilyPond much better than Scheme tutorial.

How much of scheme do we get into, though?  I mean, what about
moving it back into Notation?

As far as I'm concerned, as long as newbies know that it's
*possible* to do all sorts of funky stuff with this magical scheme
stuff, that's all they need to know.  I mean, nobody can seriously
complain that we're newbie-unfriendly by not explaining how to
make noteheads automatically change size based on their staff
position!

> > 2) Was there some reason why all the indices are called "LilyPond
> > index"?  I have a vaugue recollection that it worked better in the
> > info format or something like that...?
> 
> index.html is the default page for a website.  Hence, we wanted LilyPond
> index.

Was that seriously the reason?  I don't follow... I mean, the html
filename is "LilyPond-index.html".

> > 3) I'm not convinced about the order of material inside each
> > chapter of Usage yet -- at the moment, I just want people to
> > consider the division of stuff into chapters, not within each
> > chapter.
> 
> I think there should be at least a pointer to OooLilyPond in Usage 3.2.,

It's in Usage 3.6.  IMO, Usage 3 is the worst chapter in our
existing documentation, but I'm not getting into that until other
projects are finished up.

> I do have a minor nit to pick: on the Manuals page, the regular use section
> is ordered
> Notation, Snippets, Usage,
> but the menu bar is ordered
> Notation, Snippets, Usage.

I see there was a similar thinko when you wrote that!  The meaning
got through, though; thanks, fixed.

Cheers,
- Graham