Re: mensural notation improvements (issue3797046)

[Benkő Pál]

> > One thing I forgot to mention: I've also rewritten dot handling within
> > ligatures.  The old code
> > - didn't avoid staff lines
> > - didn't conform actual usage: dotting notes above is not a practice,
> > only if they are first within a flexa, see examples in
> > http://anaigeon.free.fr/mes_facs/fsbarb.jpg
> > http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/Eton_Choirbook.jpg

> > (actually I know one example when the second flexa note is dotted above,
> > but general usage is like the two above, when such notes are dotted
> > behind.)

> > http://codereview.appspot.com/3797046/

> According to Apel (1962: 99), the general rule would seem to be that the dot
> should be on the right if it applies to the final note of the whole
> ligature, but on top if it is anywhere else (flexa or no flexa). He has one
> example of a flexa followed by several square notes, with a dot above the
> following square note (i.e. in a position that happens to be also just to
> the right of the flexa), but the dot is meant to apply to the square note
> over which it stands, not the flexa.

When I have time to go to the library, I'll look up Apel again,
which codex it is, but if you have a handy scan available (even
better: a link, e.g. to IMSLP or DIAMM), I'd love to see it.

But let me reiterate: I've seen several codices, and only one
diverges from the usage I implemented, and even that diverges
only in dotting not only the first but the last note of a flexa
above as well.  I know that ligatures are not too frequent,
dotted notes within ligatures are extremely rare, but even the
two examples I linked clearly dot notes contrary to the Apel way.
I'll try to find an example where a non-final square note is
dotted and the following note is below it (in the linked examples
the next notes are above, so the dot of the first note appears
_below_ the next note).

p