Re: thanks again for the editionEngraver

[Urs Liska]

Am 31.10.2014 14:49, schrieb Paul Morris:
> Urs Liska wrote
> > That sounds reasonable.
> > However, original breaks *are* part of the content so that's not a
> > mixture.
>
> Hi Urs,
>
> Well, I see where you're coming from, but I think we are understanding
> "content" differently here.[1]
>
> The original breaks are an important means to render the original
> version/presentation of the score, and you would probably want to include
> them in your file(s) so that version remained an option.  But since the
> original layout is just one possible version/presentation among others, that
> tells me they are a matter of presentation and not content, in the way I'm
> understanding this distinction.
>
> Cheers,
> -Paul

Did you read my email quoted below? I have the impression it wasn't 
delivered through the list (was it down yesterday?)

Urs

###

Am 31.10.2014 01:52, schrieb Urs Liska:> Hi Kieren,
>
> interesting: I think you are 100% right, yet I have to express
> objections - as it's a matter of perspective. But now I think I should
> have said "depending on the perspective original breaks *can be* part of
> the content".
>
> Am 30.10.2014 13:21, schrieb Kieren MacMillan:
>> Hi Urs,
>>
>>> original breaks *are* part of the content so that's not a mixture.
>> I disagree: original breaks are, in my opinion, part of the original
>> presentation (engraving) of the content. There are, of course, grey
>> areas in the “content versus presentation” discussion — e.g., are
>> clefs content or presentation? (lately I’m leaning towards
>> “presentation”) — but I’m solidly of the opinion that dimensional
>> engraving choices like line and page breaks, which were dictated
>> almost entirely by the physical [hence presentational] properties of
>> the original engraving, are presentation.
>
> When you're looking at a score with a scholarly edition in mind (and
> that's what *I* usually do) you treat information like this as part of
> the content you're editing. The fact that there's a break somewhere
> gives you so much information to judge errors (e.g. issues of
> half-missing slurs or wrong accidentals, clefs etc.) that it's vital to
> process the information. Typically you'd mention in a critical remark
> when an editorial decision has been influenced by a break. Sometimes you
> can also find an explicit list of breaks, and in some types of edition
> you'd see original breaks marked in the new edition (see
> 
https://github.com/openlilylib/openlilylib/tree/master/editorial-tools/line-break-marks). 

>
>
> Current trends of (especially) digital music edition go into the
> direction of considering the "edition" as being constituted of the
> *encoding* of the content. In that concept the visual, audible or
> textual *rendering* is a more or less arbitrary instantiation of the
> edition. And these concepts tend to encode as much information as
> possible from the "sources" (in the sense of the phyiscally existing
> evidence of the composition) and treat it as part of the content. Line
> breaks are among the more coarse aspects in that perspective. One tries
> to preserve as much as possible for the reference of future scholars,
> from paper color and watermarks over marks with different ink to
> different and potentially conflicting pagination schemes of different
> writers. I can tell you that nothing is finally neglectable, and the
> most arbitrary informations can at some point trigger fundamental
> questions in a later person looking at the case.
>
> So to come back to the origin: In my perspective breaks are part of the
> content of the edition, although not part of the composition.
>
>>
>> For the record, that still doesn’t change my opinion about your
>> functions: They are worthy of existing, and could be a useful addition
>> to the main distro.
>
> That's a completely different story, and I'm currently not interested in
> spending more energy on this ...
>
> Best
> Urs
>
>>
>> Best,
>> Kieren.
>>

> [1] See the following for the distinction between content and presentation
> that I have in mind:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_presentation_and_content


> --
> View this message in context: 
> http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/thanks-again-for-the-editionEngraver-tp164625p168116.html
> Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-user mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user


--
Urs Liska
www.openlilylib.org