RE: Pitches rewrite draft

[Trevor Daniels]

Graham replied:
> 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.

Ah, yes - I'd forgotten this principle, which I support.  So
I withdraw my comment - see below.
>
> 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.  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")
>
Is this a better reason?

The section on Ancient music is very substantial and
includes much more than just clefs.  It is right that it
forms a self-contained section within Specialist notation
rather than attempting to split it up into its component
parts - noteheads, clefs, rests, time signatures, etc.
Splitting it would result in a loss in clarity rather than
an increase (that's the reason).  OTOH the section on
Microtones is tiny (at least for the present) and concerns a
single topic - accidentals.  It therefore slips easily into
Accidentals.  However, we should be conscientious to add
prominent links to the Ancient music section from all the
standard parts - from Accidentals to Ancient accidentals,
etc - to compensate.

> Cheers,
> - Graham
Trevor
>
>