On Wed, Aug 5, 2009, Carl Sorensen <c_soren...@byu.edu> said: > > > > On 8/5/09 7:22 AM, "Trevor Daniels" <t.dani...@treda.co.uk> wrote: > >>> >>> In the meantime, we can move forward on tablature. >>> >>> As I see it, the current decision causes problems only if we were >>> to change >>> to xHead in the future and eliminate deadNote. And I see no plans >>> in the >>> future to eliminate deadNote. >>> >>> Does this make sense to you?
yes, it makes sense, but I perceive it as the wrong decision > I think it was a pity that the groundwork > for a more generic approach was not laid > down right away I concur with that. And I appologize for coming late to this discussion, jobhunting and speculative programming work has distracted me from following threads I should have taken more interest in. If dead-note marking was the only use for a cross-head symbol that would make this academic, but it isnt the only use. Percusion instruments are differentiated in condensed orchestral scores by a variety of note heads for each instrument shown on the common stave, and the cross head is used for that purpose (cymbals in the one illustration I saw online). Please dont rename the cross head, it has a name, predating any usage stemming from rock musicians jargon. That name is further 'blessed' by the unicode standard, "Musical Symbol X Notehead", 1D143. -- Dana Emery _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
