A few comments:
- In "Relative octave entry", I would reorder the items in the itemized
list and
move the first item last (or at least below the currently second
item), since
the other items explain the concept of "relative to ..." which is
mentioned in the
first item.
Also, in the (currently) last item, I would start the last sentence
with "For example
'' and ,, will alter the ...".
- In Accidentals, I wouldn't refer to "Nordic and Germanic languages",
since both Swedish,
Danish, Norwegian and German use "-iss" and "-ess" (admittedly the
same concept, but
a different spelling). I just noticed that this is wrong also in the
Glossary, don't
understand how that information has survived so many years. The
spelling with
a single "s", I've only seen in Dutch so we are very lucky that
Han-Wen and Jan
were dutch, since it saves typing.
- In "Transpose" at the end of the text describing how to handle
transposing instruments,
I would replace "would" with "could" in "... you would wrap the
existing music ..."
since this is just one alternative. You could off course also get the
same result with a
single \transpose command, such as
\transpose f bes \musicInBflat
I like the current example, though, since it shows how to wrap things
together.
- The example with neutraliseMusic doesn't seem to work, right?
- In "Clef", the text on "These same clef symbols are used in different
positions on
the staff to change the ..." seems more appropriate in a music theory
treatise than
here, but maybe it doesn't hurt to include it as long as a competent
musician doesn't
get offended by the trivial information.
- In Clef, there's a "% Begin verbatim" shown in the HTML output, which
probably
shouldn't be there. Also, isn't it too much redundancy in "by setting
the explicitClefVisibility Staff property to the value |
end-of-line-invisible: \set Staff.explicitClefVisibility =
#end-of-line-invisible"?
|- In the final example of "Clef", there's something fishy with the line
breaks. The
text refers to "the second line" and there is a \break command in the
code shown,
still we only see a single score line in the typeset example.
- In "Key signature", the explanation of keySignature is wrong. One
alternative is to
write:
"... The format of this command is a list: |
\set Staff.keySignature = #'(((octave . step) . alter) ||((octave .
step) . alter) ...)| where, ..."
However, if we compare to the information in the IR, we see that this
does not tell the
full story. For each item in the list, you can also use the
alternative format (step . alter)
which specifies that the same alteration should hold in all octaves.
- In "Instrument transpositions", it should be clarified already in the
first sentence that
this only relates to scores where not all parts are typeset in concert
pitch. Also, you
shouldn't have to read half a page to realize that it only influences
MIDI output and
que notes. Finally, I guess it would make sense to cite this section
from "Transpose".
- In "Ambitus", the last example (ambiti-multiple-voices.ly) seems like
bogus to me.
A relevant use of X-offset is shown already in the second example of
the section.
In the last example, the setting does not influence the result at all,
since the setting is
done in the Voice context whereas the engraver is in the Staff
context. Also, there's
no point in removing the engravers from the Voice context (where they
don't exist by
default).
- In "Note heads", why not move the subsection "Special noteheads" first?
(Is it "noteheads" or "note heads"?) since, at least to me, it seems much
less exotic than the other subsections.
/Mats
Graham Percival wrote:
I'm still seeking comments on NR 1.1 Pitches. As far as I know,
only one advanced user has read the whole thing in the past month.
If you read it and didn't see any problems, please let me know.
View it here (and not on lilypond.org!)
http://web.uvic.ca/~gperciva/
A pdf is available. The section is 24 pages; if you prefer
viewing documentation on paper, then please consider printing it
out. You could read it on a bus/subway, under the table during a
boring business meeting, or even during an orchestra rehearsal
while the conductor fixes mistakes in the viola section. Unless
you play viola, of course.
I know you're all sick of me asking for comments about this
section, but it's important to catch mistakes before people start
translating -- if we discover mistakes after the translations are
done, we need to update documents in every language, instead of
just the English docs.
Also, this is the first part of the NR to be updated. The rest of
the NR will follow the layout of 1.1 Pitches. If there's any
problems with the layout / formatting, then I *really* want to
know now, before we edit the rest of the docs to match this
formatting.
Here is the current TODO list; don't report any issues which are
already on this list.
MINOR ISSUES
- headword could be improved (line-break)
- some minor formatting issues with included LSR stuff.
POSTPONED (ie after GDP is over)
Note names in other languages:
- table formatting
- pitches in Turkish Maquam and other microtonal systems?
Cheers,
- Graham
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
--
=============================================
Mats Bengtsson
Signal Processing
Signals, Sensors and Systems
Royal Institute of Technology
SE-100 44 STOCKHOLM
Sweden
Phone: (+46) 8 790 8463
Fax: (+46) 8 790 7260
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.s3.kth.se/~mabe
=============================================
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
