Re: Pitches rewrite draft

[Graham Percival]

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.  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")

> > - do "note names in other lanuages" need anything
> > more than cleaning up
>
> Yes:
>
> 1. The footnote which gives a reference to "Note names in
> other languages" in the subsection Accidentals should be
> promoted to the main text just after "These are the Dutch
> note names ... ".

I agree.  Actually, I think we should make a general rule to remove 
footnotes.

> 2. In the "Note names in other languages" subsection it does
> not actually say what the notation is for a simple sharp or
> flat in each of the languages (other than bes).  I would
> agree it is pretty obvious, but should still be stated for
> completeness.

Oops, that's just because the section is in the middle of formatting 
changes.  The old table (currently commented out) shows this info, and 
that info will soon be migrated into the new table (which currently only 
has one row in it).


> 3. The link to double sharp in Accidentals is broken.

Good catch!

> > - I'm not too happy with Octave check, but I
>
> However, it is clearly more than a check
> (unlike bar check) since it actually corrects the octave
> too.  Octave assertion, or, even better, octave affirmation,
> maybe?

OTOH, it's most commonly used as a check, and then we have some unity in 
the manual with "* check".

> Also, why is there a link to Grace notes in the Clef
> section?

I have honestly no idea.


(either no disagreement, or waiting for other comments, for everything else)

Cheers,
- Graham