GDP: chattiness in @seealso

[Graham Percival]

As always, GDP:
http://web.uvic.ca/~gperciva/

(another overdue discussion question, sorry)


Take a look at the "see also" sections in
        NR 1.1.3 Displaying pitches: Instrument transpositions
and
        NR 1.2.1 Writing rhythms: Durations

In 1.1.3, we have a short, compact format:
----
Notation reference: Quoting other voices, Transpose.
----

In 1.2.1, there's much more explanation of why people might want to look
at each link:
----
For ways of specifying durations for the syllables of lyrics and ways of
aligning lyrics to notes see Vocal music.

For a description of how to enter rests see Writing rests.

A note with the duration of a quadruple breve may be entered with
\maxima, but this is supported only within ancient music notation; see
Ancient notation.

Optionally, notes can be spaced proportionately to their duration. For
details of this and other settings which control proportional notation
see Proportional notation.
-----


I think we should have a consistent format for the NR; which one do
people prefer?

I have a slight preference against #2 (sentences everywhere), since IMO
in most cases it's obvious why somebody might want to look at other
section.  For example, if you're looking at Durations, it should be
pretty obvious if you personally want to look at:
Writing rests, Ancient notation, or Proportional notation.  I'll grant
that the link to Vocal music might need some explanation, though.

Of course I'm famously (and in most of your opinions, unnecessarily :)
opposed to fluff.


Option #3 is preferring no explanation at all, but allowing short
phrases in parentheses.  ie 1.2.1 would turn into this:
------
See also

Notation Reference: Writing rests, Ancient notation (for \maxima),
Proportional notation, Vocal music (for specifying durations with lyrics).
----


Cheers,
- Graham