[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: annoying `note' warnings
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: annoying `note' warnings |
Date: |
Thu, 04 May 2006 19:40:42 +0300 |
> Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 09:11:32 +0200 (CEST)
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden
> From: Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden>
>
> > > We sometimes use "note" in a different way, in the sense of a musical
> > > note.
> >
> > Okay, but then why does it have to be in @strong?
>
> Why not? We use it as documented:
We are miscommunicating. The suggestion to reword was met with ``we
cannot do this in this manual'', so I asked for examples which cannot
be reworded. If the only change that's needed to avoid the problem
is to replace @strong with @emph or some such, that's a good solution,
IMHO, it doesn't even qualify as rewording.
> What do you think of a address@hidden' instruction, something like
>
> @address@hidden value}}
Warnings are either useful or not. If they aren't useful, they should
be removed; if they are useful, then turning them off goes against
their introduction in the first place.
> @node breve
> @section breve
>
> @strong{note value}, twice as long as a whole note. Mainly used in
> pre-1650 music.
Will @emph do?
- Re: annoying `note' warnings, (continued)
- Re: annoying `note' warnings, Eli Zaretskii, 2006/05/03
- Re: annoying `note' warnings, Alper Ersoy, 2006/05/03
- Re: annoying `note' warnings, Eli Zaretskii, 2006/05/03
- Re: annoying `note' warnings, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2006/05/03
- Re: annoying `note' warnings, Alper Ersoy, 2006/05/03
- Re: annoying `note' warnings, Eli Zaretskii, 2006/05/04
Re: annoying `note' warnings, Eli Zaretskii, 2006/05/03