Re: doc reorg (especially Usage) possibly finished

[Graham Percival]

On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 07:55:32PM +0200, John Mandereau wrote:
> Le dimanche 27 septembre 2009 à 17:37 +0100, Graham Percival a écrit :
> > 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. 
> Certainly.  However, when we decide time has come to significantly
> expand this appendix and it gets too big to remain an appendix, we'll
> have to reword the reading guidelines so the reader doesn't feel he
> should even read this chapter,

I guess.  We'd also need to reword the intro to Notation, since
that "assumes the reader has read and understood the Learning
manual".

> > Was that seriously the reason?  I don't follow... I mean, the html
> > filename is "LilyPond-index.html".
> 
> So, why do you criticize the name "LilyPond index"?  The constraint is
> that we must have a node name other than "Index", otherwise the splitted
> HTML page name would clash with Top node HTML page index.html (not on
> Unix systems, but on Windows).

I'm wondering if we can call them "Function index" and "Concept
index".  Or something like that.  It just seems weird to have a
"LilyPond index" for every manual.

Cheers,
- Graham