[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GDP: fourth rearrangement

From: Mats Bengtsson
Subject: Re: GDP: fourth rearrangement
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 09:40:38 +0200
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20070716)

Looks great! A few minor details:

- In Rhythms, I would like to rearrange the order a bit, to put the most
 common aspects at the top. For example:

1.2 Rhythms
              1.2.1 Writing rhythms
                  + Durations
                  + Augmentation dots
                  + Tuplets
                  + Scaling durations
              1.2.2 Writing rests
                  + Rests
+ Skips + Multi measure rests
              1.2.3 Bars
                  + Bar check
                  + Bar lines
                  + Bar numbers
                  + Barnumber check
+ Rehearsal marks 1.2.4 Displaying rhythms
                  + Time signature
                  + Partial measures
                  + Unmetered music
                  + Polymetric notation
                  + Automatic note splitting
                  + Automatic beams
                  + Manual beams
+ Feathered beams 1.2.5 Special rhythmic concerns + Aligning to cadenzas + Time administration
                  + Proportional notation (introduction)

- You have a much better feeling for the English language than I do, but
do you think that we should keep the current mixture of "staff" and "stave" to denote the same thing, for example in the subsection titles within "Staff notation"?

- I'm sure some people don't agree that "Fingering instructions" belong to
 "Educational use", but it's OK with me. Same goes for "Ambitus"

- "Coloring objects" and "Parentheses" do not only apply to Note heads and
 stems, in general.

- How about adding some section like "Other typesetting features", which could contain things that don't really fit in anywhere else, like the four I mentioned above.

- Again, I might not have the right intuition for English language, but how about replacing "Text in a score" with something along the lines of "Textual annotations"
 I would also move "New dynamic marks" from 1.17.2 to 1.17.1.

- Why doesn't Text markup commands belong under 1.17.2 Text markup?


Graham Percival wrote:
Based on the feedback, it seems that most users would vastly prefer something like this?

Numbered titles are new HTML pages; un-numbered titles are on the same HTML page.

Sections 1.9 through 1.16 weren't put into the same arrangement, but you can imagine how it would continue.

- Graham

lilypond-devel mailing list

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]