[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: |
Mon, 24 May 2010 07:23:07 -0700 (PDT) |
Trevor Daniels wrote:
> Graham Percival wrote:
>>> @node Setting @code{X-offset} and @code{Y-offset} ...
>>
>> !!! wow, I didn't think this was allowed.
>
> I can't remember the details, but I wrote this section in
> Sept 2008 and I think I just tried it and found it worked.
> Was this around the time you took your sabbatical from LP?
> Maybe that's why you didn't notice?
I think Graham meant "I didn't think this was possible".
- Mark
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", (continued)
- 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, 2010/05/21
- 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 <=
- 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