Re: GDP: Revision of NR 2 "Specialist Notation"

[Graham Percival]

On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 13:07:37 +0100
"Trevor Daniels" <address@hidden> wrote:

> The only outstanding point from the discussion so far is how to
> handle text which seems to belong in more than one place, like
> \downbow, which for completeness properly belongs in NR 1.3
> Expressive, but which also should appear in NR 2.3.1.  My suggestion
> is that _explanations_ should go in the most general section, here NR
> 1.3, and only an example showing the use, without explanation, should
> appear elsewhere, together with an general redirection to NR 1.3 for
> details.  It would be even better if the example could be taken from
> a fragment of real music.  I think most other cases of duplication
> could be handled in a similar way.

Sounds fine to me, with the added note that "elsewhere" (from
"should appear elsewhere" means the snippet list from LSR.

This makes these examples an almost self-balancing problem: more
popular topics will gather more examples, while few people work on
less popular topics.  Also, doc workers don't need to spend time
guessing at what "real music" for an unfamiliar instument looks
like.  Also, these examples can be easily added / modified /
removed without touching the .itely files at all.

Cheers,
- Graham