RE: Doc: NR rewrite of 3.2 Titles and Headers (issue4124056)

[James Lowe]

Hello,
________________________________________
From: address@hidden address@hidden on behalf of Trevor Daniels address@hidden
Sent: 07 February 2011 11:02
To: address@hidden; address@hidden
Cc: address@hidden; address@hidden
Subject: Re: Doc: NR rewrite of 3.2 Titles and Headers (issue4124056)

<address@hidden> wrote Sunday, February 06, 2011 8:41
PM


> > On 2011/02/06 17:48:56, Trevor Daniels wrote:
>> > This comment of mine from Mark's patch still applies, even after
>> > these
> > changes:
>>
>> >> I've looked at the compiled version now.  It's nicely
>> >> written, but my concern is that this is no longer written
>> >> in 'reference' style.  To me, parts of it seem more
>> >> suited to the LM.
>>
>> ok, I've compiled it myself.  I still think that once we optimize
>> away
>> the "talking through the code", it'll fit into Notation.

I think the spacing controls are now so complex that
they really do need a 'learning' approach to help
users understand how to approach page layout.  Mark's
original patch was quite good for that, but belongs in
the LM.  Then the NR can contain purely reference material
for users who simply want to look up a detail.  I think
we are in danger of falling between the two by paring
this down.

---

It's not a problem for me to make two patches if that would help?

I can pare this one down for NR, then work on an appropriate LM one afterwards. 
Can't guarantee them both by the end of the week if that is a problem.

I'll have to move the information from one itely/itexi to another anyway and 
then I can easily grab an older 'patch' to base the LM one on.

Where my skill falls down is if the new section names cannot be moved lock 
stock and barrel over to the LM and I have to end up making new nodes. 
Otherwise I can easily just cut/paste edited chunks into the existing LM 
texi/tely files.

When a decision has been made (do we put this in LM only or both?) let me know 
so I don't waste any time by having to re-correct edits. I don't have an 
opinion either way, other than perhaps the NR could have more detail and better 
examples - even if we are (at the moment) talking through the code, but I do 
think that  some of Mark's original patch was too complex for the LM 'as is' 
and would also need simplifying. So if you think we do need an LM patch and if 
you think what I have done as first draft of edits is a good starting point for 
the LM then let me know.

James