Re: Footnotes documentation

[George_]

pkx166h-2 wrote:
> 
> George,
> 
> On 30 November 2011 22:16, George Xu <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
>> Oops, sorry. 2.14.2. I guess that explains why \auto-footnote doesn't
>> work, but it doesn't help much...
>>
>>
> In the latest 'development' version
> 
> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/notation/creating-footnotes
> 
> This is explained in much more detail, \auto-footnote is explained here,
> but many of the 'automatic/manual' footnote functions are not in 2.14.x.
> 
> See if this helps what you need with \auto-footnote as that is I believe
> in
> 2.14.x but wasn't documented as well in the 2.14.x manuals.
> 
> Regards
> 
> -- 
> --
> 
> James
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-user mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
> 
> 
I updated to 2.15.20 to try solve this issue, by the way.

I agree, the 2.15 docs seem to have it documented much better. Just
wondering, though, is there a way to get a body \markup footnote to look
like a top-level markup footnote?

Also, if I may propose a small change to the docs, I think it should
explicitly say that body markups are treated as grobs. I know that it says
that top-level markups are treated differently, but I think it should point
out a bit clearer how other markups are handled, especially when it says:

"Of the two commands used to create automatic footnotes, use
\autoFootnoteGrob for individual grobs (i.e. note heads, stems, slurs,
dynamics including \markup when using TextScripts); and \autoFootnote for
annotating chorded notes."

I don't feel that it's as clear as it could be at the moment, since the only
body markup that is footnoted is the rit. at the end of the 3rd example on
the page. So if it was changed to something like:

"Of the two commands used to create automatic footnotes, use
\autoFootnoteGrob for individual grobs (i.e. note heads, stems, slurs,
dynamics, and \markup when using TextScripts); and \autoFootnote for
annotating chorded notes."

I feel it would be much clearer. Change in bold.

Thanks

George
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Footnotes-documentation-tp32885651p32952013.html
Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.