Re: Doc: improve 2.10 World music (issue2732043)

[Valentin Villenave]

OK, new patch set.

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 4:22 PM,  <address@hidden> wrote:
> Somebody might object that we're codifying "non-western" instead of
> "non-common practice period".  I personally don't care one way or the
> other.

I do. Hans has a point in saying that "non-Western" isn't quite
appropriate; however there's no way we'll start putting acronyms in
section titles ("non-CPP"), and "Common Practice Period" is just too
long and confusing.

What I really really dislike is "World music". However I never
objected or made a fuss about it, because I realize we need to give
this section a title, and it has to be short and easy-to-get, no
matter how obnoxious and crypto-colonialist it may otherwise sound.

> Technically, this should be "Common notation for non-Western music".
> Then within that subsection, you'd have an "@unnumberedsubsubsec
> Non-Western tuning systems"

Oh, that was what I've been looking for without realizing it! Indeed,
it will make things much more consistent.

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 5:41 PM,  <address@hidden> wrote:
> ["one" is rarely used today, other than in caricatures of royalty.]

Oh, really? Then we are not amused.

> "Even if a match to existing typeset music is not required it may still
> be desirable to adjust the beaming behaviour and/or use compound time
> signatures."

I've added "*automatic* beaming behaviour, as it makes a lot more sense to me.

And now, how GTY does it L? :-)

Valentin.