Re: GDP: Time to plan the revision of NR 2 "Specialist Notation"

[Graham Percival]

On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 23:40:34 +0200
"Valentin Villenave" <address@hidden> wrote:

> 2008/4/3, Graham Percival <address@hidden>:
> 
> >  c2\upbow
> >  c2\downbow
> 
> Seems consistent to me... Do you mean you don't like this sentence?

\upbow is listed in Appendix B.something.  How to use
articulations is listed in NR 1.3.something.

If we give the above example in NR 2.whatever, we have duplicated
material in the docs.  Now, it might be *acceptable* duplication.
In this case, it probably /is/ warrented.  But we should be clear
that this is duplicated material.

Why does this matter?  Well, suppose that we change the way that
something in NR 1.x works.  We update the docs in 1.x.  However,
if material in NR 1 is duplicated throughout NR 2 as well, then we
need to change it in all those places as well.

This is particularly difficult if the doc editor isn't familiar
with the instruments at hand.  Special noteheads are a perfect
example: if you're not familiar with advanced string music, why on
earth would you (as doc editor) think to look in NR 2.x to update
instructions on using
<c f\harmonic>4
?

With LSR and people submitting snippets there, we can hopefully
reduce these problems.  Again, I'm not saying that we absolutely
must not have any duplication at all... I'm just saying that we
should consider these issues.

Cheers,
- Graham