Re: Advice on naming and structuring scholarLY command

[Urs Liska]

Hi Elaine,

Am 15.06.2018 um 02:21 schrieb Flaming Hakama by Elaine:

Actually I think  \edmark and \edMarkup (or something along these lines) might be the best compromise between the generality of the command, expressiveness and practicality.

Urs

My $0.02 is that you should spell out \editorialMark.

\edMark is not expressive enough.

We're not in an 8.3 epoch, there is no cost to a few extra letters to say what you really mean. 

OK, good point.
But (also in light of your other post on this thread) it "mark" really what it is?
I think I'd really be fine with \editorialXXX, but while we're at it we should really pick the right term, isn't it?

From my (limited) understanding of English a mark is not what we're encoding here. A mark would be a single item that describes or that points to something.
What we have *is* a descriptive element, but it is not that our command inserts an "item that describes something" but our command itself describes something that is actually included in it. We encode some music, e.g. { s2 } and describe it as being a "gap" with the attribute of its reason being damage by ink spill, for example. Or we can say that in { c8 [ d e f ] } the Beam "is" an editor's addition.

Would it be correct to say that we "mark up" some music? From Merriam-Webster's definition this is totally alien (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/markup), but isn't this exactly the meaning of "markup language"?

If that's correct I think that \editorialMarkup would be fine.

What do you think?

Urs

Thanks,

Elaine Alt

415 . 341 .4954                                           "Confusion is highly underrated"

address@hidden

Producer ~ Composer ~ Instrumentalist
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user