Graham wrote:
> Ok, let's start the other half of real GDP work
> SEEKING COMMENTS / OFFERS OF HELP
Some comments on Pitches
> - move Cautionary accidentals into Accidentals.
Yes
> - 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.
> - do "note names in other lanuages" need anything
> more than cleaning up
Yes:
1. The footnote which gives a reference to "Note names in
other languages" in the subsection Accidentals should be
promoted to the main text just after "These are the Dutch
note names ... ".
2. In the "Note names in other languages" subsection it does
not actually say what the notation is for a simple sharp or
flat in each of the languages (other than bes). I would
agree it is pretty obvious, but should still be stated for
completeness.
3. The link to double sharp in Accidentals is broken.
> - need a @refbugs above the final paragraph of
> Relative octaves.
> - Relative octaves: should we omit the discussion
> about the default
> value of c' ? (ie \relative {} ) I believe
> that this construct is
> disliked by some developers and might disappear
> in the future, so should
> we start preparing newbies by never mentioning
> it? Or should we simply
> list this in the @refbugs section?
Tell it as it is. Remove the discussion and replace it with
a footnote which says default is c' now, but this might
change.
> (+1 leave them in)
> - I'm not too happy with Octave check, but I
> can't think of any specific
> change right now. Simply add to the list of
> "rewrite whole
> subsection"?
Yes - rewrite. I've read it several times and I'm still not
confident I know how it works without experimenting (I've
never used it). However, it is clearly more than a check
(unlike bar check) since it actually corrects the octave
too. Octave assertion, or, even better, octave affirmation,
maybe?
> - ditto for Transpose: rewrite whole subsection.
It's clearer than Octave check, but it could be improved.
Rewrite with real examples.
> - Key signature: should we move the warning
> ("accidentals and key
> signatures often confuse new users..." to the
> top of the page? Or
> omit it entirely, since users are supposed to
> have read the Learning
> Manual? for that matter, should the warnings in
> the Tutorial be
> beefed up?
Omit it entirely, but it might be helpful to repeat here
that notes must be entered with _all_ alterations shown
explicitly, even those altered implicitly by the key
signature in the printed output.
> - Instrument transposition: might need more
> explanation about \transpose
> vs. \transposition.
>
I find this section confusing too, perhaps because I am not
familiar with any of the transposing instruments. A few
real examples would be a big help.
> - anything else not in this list. :)
The Clef section could be improved. Needs to say first what
the three main clef symbols are, show what they look like,
say what they mean, mention percussion and tab clefs.
_Then_ go on to show the less common variations resulting
from changing their position on the staff.
Also, why is there a link to Grace notes in the Clef
section?
>
>
> Pitches is one of the most straightforward
> sections, so there's
> relatively little in this list. That said, if
> you don't like anything
> in the new Pitches section, please speak up now
> or forever hold your
> peace.
>
There you go - I've upspoken.
>
> Cheers,
> - Graham
Trevor
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
