Docs: fix documentation reference of translation committishes

[lilypond.git] / Documentation / essay / engraving.itely

diff --git a/Documentation/essay/engraving.itely b/Documentation/essay/engraving.itely
index 953b267af4dbbf94eff3ee6676d742be2c78b3c9..e76cba4ea1ff14398f82c9e8b5ce2d0080cee0de 100644 (file)
--- a/Documentation/essay/engraving.itely
+++ b/Documentation/essay/engraving.itely
@@ -4,7 +4,8 @@
     Translation of GIT committish: FILL-IN-HEAD-COMMITTISH
 
     When revising a translation, copy the HEAD committish of the
-    version that you are working on.  See TRANSLATION for details.
+    version that you are working on.  For details, see the Contributors'
+    Guide, node Updating translation committishes..
 @end ignore
 
 @c \version "2.13.4"
@@ -84,14 +85,14 @@ and movement, and it feels like a living, breathing piece of music,
 while the newer edition seems cold and mechanical.
 
 It is kind of hard to immediately see what makes the difference with the
-newer edition.  Everything looks neat and tiny, possibly even ``better''
+newer edition.  Everything looks neat and tiny, possibly even @qq{better}
 because it looks more computerized and uniform.  This really puzzled us
 for quite a while.  We wanted to improve computer notation, but we first
 had to figure out what was wrong with it.
 
 The answer lies in the precise, mathematical uniformity of the newer
 edition.  Find the bar line in the middle of each line: in the
-hand-engraved score the position of these bar lines has some natural
+hand-engraved score the position of these bar lines has some
 natural variation, while in the newer version they line up almost
 perfectly.  This is shown in these simplified page layout diagrams,
 traced from the hand-engraved (left) and computer-generated music
@@ -619,7 +620,7 @@ for each possible configuration we compute an ugliness score and we
 choose the least ugly configuration.
 
 For example, here are three possible slur configurations, and LilyPond
-has given each one a score in `ugly points'.  The first example gets 15.39
+has given each one a score in @q{ugly points}.  The first example gets 15.39
 points for grazing one of the notes:
 
 @lilypond
@@ -1240,9 +1241,9 @@ polyphony?  In polyphonic notation, many voices can share a staff.
 In this situation, the accidentals and staff are shared, but the
 stems, slurs, beams, etc., are private to each voice.  Hence,
 engravers should be grouped.  The engravers for note heads, stems,
-slurs, etc., go into a group called @q{Voice context,} while the
+slurs, etc., go into a group called @q{Voice context}, while the
 engravers for key, accidental, bar, etc., go into a group called
-@q{Staff context.}  In the case of polyphony, a single Staff
+@q{Staff context}.  In the case of polyphony, a single Staff
 context contains more than one Voice context.  Similarly, multiple
 Staff contexts can be put into a single Score context.  The Score
 context is the top level notation context.