On 01.10.2007 (13:12), Graham Percival wrote: > 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. > 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. This should be solved through a cross-ref. I think the "reason" that you say you can't come up with, has to do with the question "Where would a user be most likely to go looking for it?" In the case of ancient music, it would be counter-intuitive and -productive to strictly follow any technical-analytical distinction, since the ancient music features come as a package: you would rarely write an ordinary score and then use a petrucci-g clef, e.g. (whereas "Modern music" is more about adding bits and pieces to "standard notation", hence it is justified to put the bits and pieces where they belong, technically). > 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") I'm looking forward to taking part in the upcoming revision of the Ancient section :-) Eyolf -- Why do so many foods come packaged in plastic? It's quite uncanny. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
