Re: Pitches rewrite draft

[Eyolf Østrem]

On 01.10.2007 (13:12), Graham Percival wrote:
> Trevor Daniels wrote:
> >Graham wrote:
> >>- move Micro tones into Accidentals.
> >No, too specialist.  Should it be moved into Specialist
> >notation? Wherever it is it needs a link to Other languages.

> I disagree with this, although I admit that I can't come up with a good 
> reason.

> One of the things I was trying to do was to make the new doc sections a 
> complete reference for each item.  So Pitches would include everything 
> about pitches, expressive marks would include everything about that, etc.

> Here's where my reasoning falls down: I admit that this doesn't work with 
> Ancient music.  Pitches->displaying->clefs doesn't include ancient music 
> clefs, for example.

This should be solved through a cross-ref. I think the "reason" that
you say you can't come up with, has to do with the question "Where
would a user be most likely to go looking for it?" In the case of
ancient music, it would be counter-intuitive and -productive to
strictly follow any technical-analytical distinction, since the
ancient music features come as a package: you would rarely write an
ordinary score and then use a petrucci-g clef, e.g. (whereas "Modern
music" is more about adding bits and pieces to "standard notation",
hence it is justified to put the bits and pieces where they belong,
technically).

> I'm still confident that the manual should be split 
> up this way, but I can't point to a general principle to back me up on 
> this.  :|    (other than "our ancient music support is a bit old, no pun 
> intended, so I'd rather hide it at the back of the manual")

I'm looking forward to taking part in the upcoming revision of the
Ancient section :-)

Eyolf

-- 
Why do so many foods come packaged in plastic?  It's quite uncanny.