On 9/11/07, Rune Zedeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
