Re: GDP: rearrangement

[Trevor Bača]

On 9/11/07, Rune Zedeler <address@hidden> wrote:
> Valentin Villenave skrev:
>
> > Why does "decorating" have a negative meaning to everyone but me?
> > Your suggestions are fine too, though.
>
> The problems are
> - even though the term makes sense, it is quite difficult to uniquely
> determine whether a specific feature is "decorating"
> - Separating decorating stuff from non-decorating stuff moves closely
> related items away from each other. E.g. automatic accidentals are
> non-decorating whereas cautional accidentals are decorating. Ties are
> non-decorating whereas slurs are decorating. Moving these sections away
> from each other will make the manual very difficult to use.


Would it be bad for me to point to my previous thread (on flattening
the manual)? The problem isn't whether "decorative" is perjorative or
not; the problem is that grouping a bunch of (essential) notation
stuff under the larger header of "decorating" *or anything else*
doesn't actually buy us anything (and, in fact, separates related
notation elements, as Rune points out). Promote each decorating
section to the status of a free-standing chapter and the problem will
disappear.

We need not to freak out about a 20 or 30 chapter notaton reference;
that's perfectly valid for a reference.




-- 
Trevor Bača
address@hidden