Re: GDP: rearrangement
Hello, from what so far has been discussed I catched somewhat the need is to group the issues more into "single topic" sections of subsections. For the discussion about the format of the html-docu: I would rather like to have whole subsections downloading than those tiny pages -- I also get lost on them and always have to go at least three steps up until I come again to the contents where I look for another promising section's name. So actually for me also a link to the toc would be sufficient, maybe also one to the index, to be on *every* page. I personally dislike the system that for going from a subsection to the next section demands climbing up one level -- I am probably too much used to reading real books where this kind of strange behaviour doesn't happen. But it might be a texinfo issue that we cannot incluence... About rearranging: I would suggest breaking up chapters (with only one number, like 6, 7, and so on) into smaller chapters in some cases, that is being more specific on the lowest level. For instance I could imagine a chapter "Ancient music", and one on educational subjects. At least I don't see why Ancient is "instrument specific", so why not put it in 7 from the current suggestion, right after educational and special noteheads. I didn't check the situation now but from the discussion about "aligning cadenzas" -- I would look for cadenzas either in grace notes (being something "additional") or at rhythmic issues. From there we could have a link to a general chapter about aligning... I am also somewhat unpleasant with the current "string" section in the instrument specific chapter: I would like to see here all those \bowdown, \bowup, \flageolet, \thumb and so on that are in "articulations" so far -- or at least a link to them. Well, that's already about contents, not only rearranging. I like the "text"-section, that is a good idea. But going the same way for other stuff as well... Name of chapter 7 should maybe be changed, not everything is about "decoration", there are some really important things. Would it be something like "polishing", "finishing" or the like? Sorry for writing so confused, I hope it is still understandable. It's mainly just some thoughts... Greetings Till * 6 Basic musical notation o 6.1 Pitches + 6.1.1 Normal pitches + 6.1.2 Accidentals + 6.1.3 Cautionary accidentals + 6.1.4 Micro tones + 6.1.5 Note names in other languages + 6.1.6 Relative octaves + 6.1.7 Octave check + 6.1.8 Rests + 6.1.9 Skips o 6.2 Affecting multiple pitches + 6.2.1 Clef + 6.2.2 Key signature + 6.2.3 Transpose + 6.2.4 Instrument transpositions + 6.2.5 Ottava brackets o 6.3 Rhythms + 6.3.1 Durations + 6.3.2 Augmentation dots + 6.3.3 Tuplets + 6.3.4 Scaling durations + 6.3.5 Automatic note splitting + 6.3.6 Aligning to cadenzas o 6.4 Meter + 6.4.1 Time signature + 6.4.2 Partial measures + 6.4.3 Unmetered music + 6.4.4 Polymetric notation (alternating) + 6.4.5 Polymetric notation (simultaneous) + 6.4.6 Time administration + 6.4.7 Proportional notation (introduction) + 6.4.8 Automatic beams + 6.4.9 Manual beams + 6.4.10 Feathered beams o 6.5 Bars + 6.5.1 Bar check + 6.5.2 Barnumber check + 6.5.3 Multi measure rests + 6.5.4 Bar lines + 6.5.5 Bar numbers + 6.5.6 Rehearsal marks o 6.6 Polyphony + 6.6.1 Chords + 6.6.2 Stems + 6.6.3 Basic polyphony + 6.6.4 Explicitly instantiating voices + 6.6.5 Collision resolution + 6.6.6 Clusters + 6.6.7 Automatic part combining + 6.6.8 Writing music in parallel * 7 Decorating musical notation o 7.1 Connecting notes + 7.1.1 Ties + 7.1.2 Slurs + 7.1.3 Phrasing slurs + 7.1.4 Laissez vibrer ties + 7.1.5 Grace notes + 7.1.6 Analysis brackets o 7.2 Expressive marks + 7.2.1 Articulations + 7.2.2 Dynamics (absolute) + 7.2.3 Dynamics (crescendi) + 7.2.4 Breath marks + 7.2.5 Trills + 7.2.6 Glissando + 7.2.7 Arpeggio + 7.2.8 Falls and doits o 7.3 Staff notation + 7.3.1 System start delimiters + 7.3.2 Staff symbol + 7.3.3 Hiding staves + 7.3.4 Metr
Re: GDP: rearrangement (third attempt)
fiëé visuëlle wrote: How about collecting the page layout with other print related stuff like lilypond-book, graphics formats etc.? As collecting the sound output related (everything else than MIDI?) No, lilypond-book is in the Program Usage now. The manual deals with lilypond input format. As for MIDI, we barely have three subsections -- if we go the merging-subsections route, then we probably only have *one* subsection. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: rearrangement (third attempt)
John Mandereau wrote: Tu sum up your suggestion, which I like quite much, I propose the following section (inside chapter 7 "Decorating musical notation", and replacing "Special use"): 7.6 Note heads and stems 7.6.1 Stems 7.6.2 Special noteheads 7.6.3 Improvisation 7.6.4 Selecting notation font size 7.6.5 Hidden notes 7.6.6 Parentheses I still this this could be improved, but let's go with it for now (until we've resolved the merging subsections) If we move Stems out of 6.6 Polyphony, then we now have 6.6.6 Automatic part combining. Given the number of bug reports about that, I think this is extremely fitting, so I approve of this suggestion. :) Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: rearrangement (third attempt)
Am 2007-09-10 um 18:29 schrieb John Mandereau: 11 Page layout (new chapter) 11.1 Paper and pages (moved from Spacing issues) 11.2 Titles and headers 11.3 Breaks (moved from Spacing issues) The problem is, this breaks the unity of Spacing stuff in a single chapter, and if we do this, we must have a look at the subsections to be moved (which I haven't done here in my naive proposal). Without spacing stuff (can anything else be added to this chapter, btw?), a chapter about page layout containing only "Titles and headers" would be too small, so IMHO it's not a so good idea. Rune, we welcome a better and more precise proposal, though ;-) How about collecting the page layout with other print related stuff like lilypond-book, graphics formats etc.? As collecting the sound output related (everything else than MIDI?) Greetlings from Lake Constance --- fiëé visuëlle Henning Hraban Ramm http://www.fiee.net http://angerweit.tikon.ch/lieder/ https://www.cacert.org (I'm an assurer) ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: rearrangement (third attempt)
Le lundi 10 septembre 2007 à 05:22 -0700, Graham Percival a écrit : > Rune Zedeler wrote: > > Very first I comment on the stuff I wrote below: When I wrote it I > > didn't really notice / think about the fact the the first five sections > > are left out. Probably some of my comments are not totally valid. Well, > > I will think some more, and post another message about the overall > > structure of the manual. > > As I said earlier, > > - the manual will be split even more into Learning Manual / Notation > Reference. This is the notation reference, so we assume that users > have read the LM. They know about music expressions, \override, etc. > The LM will be increased to accomodate for this, but that's a separate > discussion. > > > The division between Basic/Advanced was a somewhat artificial thing for > newbies reading the NR for the first time. But the main use of the NR > is to be a *reference* -- ie knowledgeable users look stuff up in it. > So I don't think it's worth putting things in a weird order for just to > make it easier for new users -- the Learning Manual is the place for > them, and that document most definitely *can* and *should* be read from > start to finish. I totally agree with you on these points. > >>+ 6.4.7 Proportional notation (introduction) > > > > No, this is too layout specific for this section. It has nothing to do > > with the musical content, only with how it is displayed. > > Trevor already proposed deleting this entirely. Shall I go ahead and remove this in master? I'd add the LSR links in the deleted subsec to "Proportional notation" in chapter "Spacing issues". > ... my general concern with "it isn't musical content, only with how it > is displayed" is that most musicians don't make that distinction. Most > people _would_ say that ottava changes pitches. > > OTOH, we try to enforce this mentality in our discussion about key > signatures. Hmm, what would think about > > 6.1 Pitches > 6.2 Displaying pitches > (move Transpose into 6.1) > 6.3 Rhythms > 6.4 Displaying rhythms > 6.5 Bars > (strictly speaking Bars would be a subset of Displaying rhythms, but I > think this section works well by itself, with bar numbers, multi-measure > rests, and the like all together) I really like these section names. Let's adopt them! > >>+ 6.4.8 Automatic beams > >>+ 6.4.9 Manual beams > >>+ 6.4.10 Feathered beams > > > > I don't think that beams belong in this section - they belong together > > with phrasing slurs. > > IMO, beaming is intricately bound up in meter. I could be convinced > otherwise, though. Anybody else have opinions about this? No, I just second your opinion here too. > >> o 8.6 Bowed strings > >>+ 8.6.1 Artificial harmonics > > > > Well, isn't this also used in classical guitar? I am not sure, though. > > I used to get into arguments with a classical guitarist about what > artificial vs. harmonics meant. He thought they were opposite to what > orchestral string players did, and I have no knowledge of guitar > terminology so I couldn't be certain that he was wrong about that > instrument. To avoid these matters, I called it "artificial harmonics > (strings)" I've played with a classical guitarist for one year, and in two pieces we played there were artifical harmonics (or if you want to avoid arguments let's call them just "harmonics"). I'm sure anybody who wants to notate harmonics for the guitar will most probably get enough inspiration to look for "harmonics" in the index or look for harmonics in the section about strings. That's why we can keep harmonics in the strings section. > >> o 9.4 Titles and headers > > > > I would like a "Page layout" chaper, where this section should go. > > Mentioning "multi scores in one files" would also fit nicely in there, > > along with the discussion of the paper- and layout-blocks. > > I agree with this, but not very strongly yet. John, Valentin? You guys > wanted this in Text; feel like defending this position? :) Yes. After arguments brought in this discussion, I can propose (without being fully convinced): 9 Text (or "Text and vocal music" or "Text and lyrics", I don't mind) 9.1 Text in a score 9.2 Text markup 9.3 Vocal music 10 Input and output (like in Graham's first proposal) 11 Page layout (new chapter) 11.1 Paper and pages (moved from Spacing issues) 11.2 Titles and headers 11.3 Breaks (moved from Spacing issues) The problem is, this breaks the unity of Spacing stuff in a single chapter, and if we do this, we must have a look at the subsections to be moved (which I haven't done here in my naive proposal). Without spacing stuff (can anything else be added to this chapter, btw?), a chapter about page layout containing only "Titles and headers" would be too small, so IMHO it's not a so good idea. Rune, we welcome a better and mo
Re: GDP: rearrangement (third attempt)
Le lundi 10 septembre 2007 à 14:37 +0200, Mats Bengtsson a écrit : > Graham Percival wrote: > > > >>>+ 6.6.2 Stems > >> > >> Currently, this subsection has nothing to do with polyphony. > >> Furthermore it is layout specific, and should therefore be postponed. > > > > I have _always_ hated this section. I remember trying -- and failing > > -- to find a home for it when I did my very first doc rearrangement, > > and it's still a pain. > > > > Help? Anybody have a suggestion for where to move this to? (or > > perhaps delete entirely, and put info about \stemDown... where?) > How about some combined subsection on (ordinary) notes which deals with > both > note heads and stems? Currently, we don't have any specific subsection > on note > heads (though there are a few related to special notation). Any section > that > describes \xxxDown and \xxxUp macros should also refer to the section > that describes \voiceOne and \voiceTwo, since that's mostly a better > solution. > (Sorry, couldn't help leaving the structure and talking about content > for a moment). Tu sum up your suggestion, which I like quite much, I propose the following section (inside chapter 7 "Decorating musical notation", and replacing "Special use"): 7.6 Note heads and stems 7.6.1 Stems 7.6.2 Special noteheads 7.6.3 Improvisation 7.6.4 Selecting notation font size 7.6.5 Hidden notes 7.6.6 Parentheses My two cents: maybe "Parentheses" should be included in a (sub)section in chapter 7, called "Editorial notation", which would also deal with bracketed dynamics for example. Then, I don't know where to move "Coloring objects", what a pain! What about including it as an example subsection in "9.3 The \override command", with proper index entries, and adding a "See also" link from the main page of chapter 7? Cheers, John ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: rearrangement (third attempt)
On 10.09.2007 (09:06), Kieren MacMillan wrote: > Hi Valentin, > >I doubt we have enough stuff to make a whole "Page layout" chapter. > I disagree... > There's *more* than enough for a Page Layout chapter: even if some (much?) > of the material is referenced elsewhere/earlier, it would be beneficial to > have a single coherent section in which all of the features are collated. Agree wholeheartedly. Besides, what's wrong with having a chapter which is smaller than others if it fulfills an independent function? Which page layout definitely is. e -- I'm killing time while I wait for life to shower me with meaning and happiness.-- Calvin ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: rearrangement (third attempt)
Hi Valentin, I doubt we have enough stuff to make a whole "Page layout" chapter. I disagree... There's *more* than enough for a Page Layout chapter: even if some (much?) of the material is referenced elsewhere/earlier, it would be beneficial to have a single coherent section in which all of the features are collated. Cheers, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: rearrangement (third attempt)
2007/9/10, Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >>+ 6.2.1 Clef > >>+ 6.2.2 Key signature > > > > Hmm, neither clefs nor key signatures affect pitches. They only affect > > how they are displayed. > > Yes, true. Rename section? Hell yes! What about : "Pitches notation" or something like that? This way, both transposing and ottava stuff should stay. > 6.1 Pitches > 6.2 Displaying pitches > (move Transpose into 6.1) > 6.3 Rhythms > 6.4 Displaying rhythms > 6.5 Bars > (strictly speaking Bars would be a subset of Displaying rhythms, but I > think this section works well by itself, with bar numbers, multi-measure > rests, and the like all together) > > Hmmm... would we have enough material to create a > Display polyphony > section? This could be worth trying. > > I do not in the same way see the meaning in "decorating musical notation". Rune: As i've told John before, "decorating" isn't necessarily pejorative. It isn't just about making the score fancy and eye-candy at all. When writing my music, I always start by entering just the notes, then I print it and go to the piano to add every performance indications. These are two completely different steps, different logics. I've managed to convince John, so maybe I'll convince you too :) > > Well, isn't this also used in classical guitar? I am not sure, though. > > I used to get into arguments with a classical guitarist about what > artificial vs. harmonics meant. He thought they were opposite to what > orchestral string players did, and I have no knowledge of guitar > terminology so I couldn't be certain that he was wrong about that > instrument. To avoid these matters, I called it "artificial harmonics > (strings)" Well, artificial harmonics can be used in guitar music, but it is non-standard. It is "officially" a bowed-strings practice. > >> o 8.7 Ancient notation > > > > Hmm, not really instrument specific. > > "Specific-purpose notation" ? > "Notation for limited use" ? "Specific notation"? > >> o 9.1 Text in a score > > > > This is definitely decorative. Put it in the decorative section now it's > > there. > > > >> o 9.2 Text markup section > > > > This would be a great candidate for its own chapter, imo. > > IMO we should include 9.1 with 9.2. Agreed. But let's put the lyrics stuff before. > > >> o 9.3 Vocal music > > > > If we consider the human voice an instrument, then this is very > > instrument specific. Move it to that section. > > That's where it used to be, but singers complained. :) > > >> o 9.4 Titles and headers > > > > I would like a "Page layout" chaper, where this section should go. > > Mentioning "multi scores in one files" would also fit nicely in there, > > along with the discussion of the paper- and layout-blocks. > > I agree with this, but not very strongly yet. John, Valentin? You guys > wanted this in Text; feel like defending this position? :) Well, IIRC it was your idea :) I like that every text elements can be in a same chapter (I'd have add instrument names as well). The main question a user will ask is: "ok, I've typeset my music; now how can I add some text". I do think we should start with Vocal music. Other than that, i'm fine with it as it is. Plus, I doubt we have enough stuff to make a whole "Page layout" chapter. Valentin ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: rearrangement (third attempt)
On 10.09.2007 (05:22), Graham Percival wrote: > Rune Zedeler wrote: > >And in all cases, it is way too early. The user has not even learned what > >the "4" in "c4" means. > Tutorial. If a user hasn't read the LM, they're on their own and I have > *no* sympathy for them. That's definitely the right approach. The *Documentation* should be in a reference form, arranged according to contents. This, IMHO, relates also to the question: bigger or smaller sections/subsections: it is rarely the case that one has a very specific question which can be answered by looking at a small subsection. My own usage is to open the pdf, search through the whole document for some word I expect to be relevant, and hopefully find the answer, either in some specific place, or from what I can piece together. I hardly ever use the ToC. For the same reason, I hardly ever use the one-page-per-subsection version of the doc. > ... my general concern with "it isn't musical content, only with how it is > displayed" is that most musicians don't make that distinction. Most > people _would_ say that ottava changes pitches. This is also the right way to go, I think. Whether or not something CHANGES the pitch, it still has to do with representing pitches, and I have no problem at all with a main heading "Pitches", which then, if necessary, can be subdivided into "Entering pitches" and "modifying the display" or something. > >I don't think that beams belong in this section - they belong together > >with phrasing slurs. > IMO, beaming is intricately bound up in meter. I could be convinced > otherwise, though. Anybody else have opinions about this? > >> o 8.7 Ancient notation > >Hmm, not really instrument specific. > "Specific-purpose notation" ? > "Notation for limited use" ? Why not a section of its own? > >> o 9.3 Vocal music > >If we consider the human voice an instrument, then this is very > >instrument specific. Move it to that section. > That's where it used to be, but singers complained. :) And rightly so... :-) If it should go anywhere else, it could perhaps be together with "Text", since that is (mainly) what distinguishes it from "normal" music. Eyolf -- David Brinkley: The daily astrological charts are precisely where, in my judgment, they belong, and that is on the comic page. George Will: I don't think astrology belongs even on the comic pages. The comics are making no truth claim. Brinkley: Where would you put it? Will: I wouldn't put it in the newspaper. I think it's transparent rubbish. It's a reflection of an idea that we expelled from Western thought in the sixteenth century, that we are in the center of a caring universe. We are not the center of the universe, and it doesn't care. The star's alignment at the time of our birth -- that is absolute rubbish. It is not funny to have it intruded among people who have nuclear weapons. Sam Donaldson: This isn't something new. Governor Ronald Reagan was sworn in just after midnight in his first term in Sacramento because the stars said it was a propitious time. Will: They [horoscopes] are utter crashing banalities. They could apply to anyone and anything. Brinkley: When is the exact moment [of birth]? I don't think the nurse is standing there with a stopwatch and a notepad. Donaldson: If we're making decisions based on the stars -- that's a cockamamie thing. People want to know. -- "This Week" with David Brinkley, ABC Television, Sunday, May 8, 1988, excerpts from a discussion on Astrology and Reagan ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: rearrangement (third attempt)
Graham Percival wrote: + 6.6.2 Stems Currently, this subsection has nothing to do with polyphony. Furthermore it is layout specific, and should therefore be postponed. I have _always_ hated this section. I remember trying -- and failing -- to find a home for it when I did my very first doc rearrangement, and it's still a pain. Help? Anybody have a suggestion for where to move this to? (or perhaps delete entirely, and put info about \stemDown... where?) How about some combined subsection on (ordinary) notes which deals with both note heads and stems? Currently, we don't have any specific subsection on note heads (though there are a few related to special notation). Any section that describes \xxxDown and \xxxUp macros should also refer to the section that describes \voiceOne and \voiceTwo, since that's mostly a better solution. (Sorry, couldn't help leaving the structure and talking about content for a moment). /Mats ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: rearrangement (third attempt)
Rune Zedeler wrote: Very first I comment on the stuff I wrote below: When I wrote it I didn't really notice / think about the fact the the first five sections are left out. Probably some of my comments are not totally valid. Well, I will think some more, and post another message about the overall structure of the manual. As I said earlier, - the manual will be split even more into Learning Manual / Notation Reference. This is the notation reference, so we assume that users have read the LM. They know about music expressions, \override, etc. The LM will be increased to accomodate for this, but that's a separate discussion. The division between Basic/Advanced was a somewhat artificial thing for newbies reading the NR for the first time. But the main use of the NR is to be a *reference* -- ie knowledgeable users look stuff up in it. So I don't think it's worth putting things in a weird order for just to make it easier for new users -- the Learning Manual is the place for them, and that document most definitely *can* and *should* be read from start to finish. + 6.2.1 Clef + 6.2.2 Key signature Hmm, neither clefs nor key signatures affect pitches. They only affect how they are displayed. Yes, true. Rename section? + 6.2.4 Instrument transpositions No, This subsection is very advanced (try reading it!) - I think it is way too early in the manual. I am not even sure, that I understand it properly. It makes sense to have this next to Transposition. Making that subsection easier to read is certainly a goal of later stages of GDP. + 6.2.5 Ottava brackets No, again they do not affect pitches. They just affect how they are displayed. Summa summarum I only accepted the "Transpose" subsection in this section - and hence really do not think that this section has any purpose. Rename section? Alternately, where should we move those subsections to? And in all cases, it is way too early. The user has not even learned what the "4" in "c4" means. Tutorial. If a user hasn't read the LM, they're on their own and I have *no* sympathy for them. + 6.3.5 Automatic note splitting This does not work before the "Bars" section. I see no problem in simply moving this to there. Could do... I'm certainly not opposed to this change, but I'll need a bit more convincing. + 6.4.7 Proportional notation (introduction) No, this is too layout specific for this section. It has nothing to do with the musical content, only with how it is displayed. Trevor already proposed deleting this entirely. ... my general concern with "it isn't musical content, only with how it is displayed" is that most musicians don't make that distinction. Most people _would_ say that ottava changes pitches. OTOH, we try to enforce this mentality in our discussion about key signatures. Hmm, what would think about 6.1 Pitches 6.2 Displaying pitches (move Transpose into 6.1) 6.3 Rhythms 6.4 Displaying rhythms 6.5 Bars (strictly speaking Bars would be a subset of Displaying rhythms, but I think this section works well by itself, with bar numbers, multi-measure rests, and the like all together) + 6.4.8 Automatic beams + 6.4.9 Manual beams + 6.4.10 Feathered beams I don't think that beams belong in this section - they belong together with phrasing slurs. IMO, beaming is intricately bound up in meter. I could be convinced otherwise, though. Anybody else have opinions about this? + 6.6.2 Stems Currently, this subsection has nothing to do with polyphony. Furthermore it is layout specific, and should therefore be postponed. I have _always_ hated this section. I remember trying -- and failing -- to find a home for it when I did my very first doc rearrangement, and it's still a pain. Help? Anybody have a suggestion for where to move this to? (or perhaps delete entirely, and put info about \stemDown... where?) + 6.6.5 Collision resolution No, this should be postponed to some "tweaking" section. A "Polyphony" section should not contain layout-specific subsections. Hmmm... would we have enough material to create a Display polyphony section? * 7 Decorating musical notation The way I always thought of the distinction between "basic" and "advanced" notation is that the basic notation contained the parts that lilypond understands the musical meaning of whereas the advanced notation was the parts that lilypond does not know how to interpret musically. I.e. if you do stuff that you have read about in the "basic" section, the generated midi will (or at least should) reflect it; if you do stuff in the "advanced" section, the midi will not reflect it. I can see that this is not strictly correct, but this is the way I have always thought about it and therefore I think that the distinction made great s
Re: GDP: rearrangement (third attempt)
Tim Litwiller wrote: In email setting under your account Composition & Addressing - do you have it set to Compose message in HTML format and then if you have preferred to recieve message format as plaintext in the addressbook. if they are different thunderbird will try to convert Thank you! I was always looking in Preferences, instead of Account settings. I mean, Preferences _does_ include a section about "html preferences", but it didn't include "turn it off". :| Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: rearrangement (third attempt)
In email setting under your account Composition & Addressing - do you have it set to Compose message in HTML format and then if you have preferred to recieve message format as plaintext in the addressbook. if they are different thunderbird will try to convert if you don't have the list in you address book then it shouldn't be a problem. Graham Percival wrote: Well, don't I feel like a complete newbie. :/Does anybody know how to make Thunderbird treat text like pure bloody text, and not change the displayed text when it sends an email out? thanks in advance. :( I added the sectioning here: http://lilypondwiki.tuxfamily.org/index.php?title=Doc Please don't edit that page. This is just because I'm apparently unable to use my mail client. :( - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: rearrangement (third attempt)
Very first I comment on the stuff I wrote below: When I wrote it I didn't really notice / think about the fact the the first five sections are left out. Probably some of my comments are not totally valid. Well, I will think some more, and post another message about the overall structure of the manual. First a general comment. I think it should be possible to read the manual from start to finish, understanding the stuff that you encounter. If understanding section B requires you to have read section A, this means that section A should come before section B in the manual. I think the old layout accomplished this relatively well. And the new definitely does not. * 6 Basic musical notation o 6.1 Pitches + 6.1.1 Normal pitches + 6.1.2 Accidentals + 6.1.3 Cautionary accidentals + 6.1.4 Micro tones + 6.1.5 Note names in other languages + 6.1.6 Relative octaves + 6.1.7 Octave check + 6.1.8 Rests + 6.1.9 Skips Yep. o 6.2 Affecting multiple pitches + 6.2.1 Clef + 6.2.2 Key signature Hmm, neither clefs nor key signatures affect pitches. They only affect how they are displayed. + 6.2.3 Transpose Well, yeah, transpose affects multiple pitches that is true. + 6.2.4 Instrument transpositions No, This subsection is very advanced (try reading it!) - I think it is way too early in the manual. I am not even sure, that I understand it properly. + 6.2.5 Ottava brackets No, again they do not affect pitches. They just affect how they are displayed. Summa summarum I only accepted the "Transpose" subsection in this section - and hence really do not think that this section has any purpose. And in all cases, it is way too early. The user has not even learned what the "4" in "c4" means. o 6.3 Rhythms + 6.3.1 Durations + 6.3.2 Augmentation dots + 6.3.3 Tuplets + 6.3.4 Scaling durations Yep. + 6.3.5 Automatic note splitting This does not work before the "Bars" section. I see no problem in simply moving this to there. + 6.3.6 Aligning to cadenzas I don't think that the user would be able to understand a single word of this subsection at this time. Scheme functions. Staves, Grand staves. And it has really nothing to do with rhythms. o 6.4 Meter + 6.4.1 Time signature + 6.4.2 Partial measures + 6.4.3 Unmetered music + 6.4.4 Polymetric notation (alternating) + 6.4.5 Polymetric notation (simultaneous) + 6.4.6 Time administration I like the "meter" title, though I think it is a bit early. Does it make sence to have "simultainous polymetric notation" before "polyphony"? I think not. Also the "Time administration" subsection is very advanced. The meter section is easy to handle because you can read and understand the rest of the manual without ever reading this section. - You just won't be able to use anything but 4/4 meter if you don't read it. Therefore we could postpone it to a much later place. + 6.4.7 Proportional notation (introduction) No, this is too layout specific for this section. It has nothing to do with the musical content, only with how it is displayed. + 6.4.8 Automatic beams + 6.4.9 Manual beams + 6.4.10 Feathered beams I don't think that beams belong in this section - they belong together with phrasing slurs. I liked the old "Connecting notes" section. o 6.5 Bars + 6.5.1 Bar check + 6.5.2 Barnumber check + 6.5.3 Multi measure rests + 6.5.4 Bar lines + 6.5.5 Bar numbers + 6.5.6 Rehearsal marks Fine. Makes a lot of sense to put everything about bars together. o 6.6 Polyphony + 6.6.1 Chords Yep. + 6.6.2 Stems Currently, this subsection has nothing to do with polyphony. Furthermore it is layout specific, and should therefore be postponed. + 6.6.3 Basic polyphony + 6.6.4 Explicitly instantiating voices ok. + 6.6.5 Collision resolution No, this should be postponed to some "tweaking" section. A "Polyphony" section should not contain layout-specific subsections. + 6.6.6 Clusters + 6.6.7 Automatic part combining + 6.6.8 Writing music in parallel Yep. * 7 Decorating musical notation The way I always thought of the distinction between "basic" and "advanced" notation is that the basic notation contained the parts that lilypond understands the musical meaning of whereas the advanced notation was the parts that lilypond do
Re: GDP: rearrangement (third attempt)
Graham Percival skrev: Well, don't I feel like a complete newbie. :/Does anybody know how to make Thunderbird treat text like pure bloody text, and not change the displayed text when it sends an email out? thanks in advance. :( I don't know what you did wrong. I just copypasted the below from your wiki-page (using thunderbird, yes): * 6 Basic musical notation o 6.1 Pitches + 6.1.1 Normal pitches + 6.1.2 Accidentals + 6.1.3 Cautionary accidentals + 6.1.4 Micro tones + 6.1.5 Note names in other languages + 6.1.6 Relative octaves + 6.1.7 Octave check + 6.1.8 Rests + 6.1.9 Skips o 6.2 Affecting multiple pitches + 6.2.1 Clef + 6.2.2 Key signature + 6.2.3 Transpose + 6.2.4 Instrument transpositions + 6.2.5 Ottava brackets o 6.3 Rhythms + 6.3.1 Durations + 6.3.2 Augmentation dots + 6.3.3 Tuplets + 6.3.4 Scaling durations + 6.3.5 Automatic note splitting + 6.3.6 Aligning to cadenzas o 6.4 Meter + 6.4.1 Time signature + 6.4.2 Partial measures + 6.4.3 Unmetered music + 6.4.4 Polymetric notation (alternating) + 6.4.5 Polymetric notation (simultaneous) + 6.4.6 Time administration + 6.4.7 Proportional notation (introduction) + 6.4.8 Automatic beams + 6.4.9 Manual beams + 6.4.10 Feathered beams o 6.5 Bars + 6.5.1 Bar check + 6.5.2 Barnumber check + 6.5.3 Multi measure rests + 6.5.4 Bar lines + 6.5.5 Bar numbers + 6.5.6 Rehearsal marks o 6.6 Polyphony + 6.6.1 Chords + 6.6.2 Stems + 6.6.3 Basic polyphony + 6.6.4 Explicitly instantiating voices + 6.6.5 Collision resolution + 6.6.6 Clusters + 6.6.7 Automatic part combining + 6.6.8 Writing music in parallel * 7 Decorating musical notation o 7.1 Connecting notes + 7.1.1 Ties + 7.1.2 Slurs + 7.1.3 Phrasing slurs + 7.1.4 Laissez vibrer ties + 7.1.5 Grace notes + 7.1.6 Analysis brackets o 7.2 Expressive marks + 7.2.1 Articulations + 7.2.2 Dynamics (absolute) + 7.2.3 Dynamics (crescendi) + 7.2.4 Breath marks + 7.2.5 Trills + 7.2.6 Glissando + 7.2.7 Arpeggio + 7.2.8 Falls and doits o 7.3 Staff notation + 7.3.1 System start delimiters + 7.3.2 Staff symbol + 7.3.3 Hiding staves + 7.3.4 Metronome marks + 7.3.5 Instrument names + 7.3.6 Quoting other voices + 7.3.7 Formatting cue notes o 7.4 Repeats + 7.4.1 Repeat types + 7.4.2 Repeat syntax + 7.4.3 Repeats and MIDI + 7.4.4 Manual repeat commands + 7.4.5 Tremolo repeats + 7.4.6 Tremolo subdivisions + 7.4.7 Measure repeats o 7.5 Educational use + 7.5.1 Balloon help + 7.5.2 Fingering instructions + 7.5.3 Blank music sheet + 7.5.4 Grid lines + 7.5.5 Shape note heads + 7.5.6 Easy Notation note heads o 7.6 Special use + 7.6.1 Special noteheads + 7.6.2 Improvisation + 7.6.3 Selecting notation font size + 7.6.4 Hidden notes + 7.6.5 Coloring objects + 7.6.6 Parentheses * 8 Instrument-specific notation o 8.1 Piano music + 8.1.1 Pedals + 8.1.2 Automatic staff changes + 8.1.3 Manual staff switches + 8.1.4 Staff switch lines + 8.1.5 Cross staff stems o 8.2 Chord names + 8.2.1 Introducing chord names + 8.2.2 Chords mode + 8.2.3 Printing chord names + 8.2.4 Figured bass o 8.3 Rhythmic music + 8.3.1 Showing melody rhythms + 8.3.2 Entering percussion + 8.3.3 Percussion staves + 8.3.4 Ghost notes o 8.4 Guitar + 8.4.1 String number indications + 8.4.2 Tablatures basic + 8.4.3 Non-guitar tablatures + 8.4.4 Banjo tablatures + 8.4.5 Fret diagrams + 8.4.6 Right hand fingerings
GDP: rearrangement (third attempt)
Well, don't I feel like a complete newbie. :/Does anybody know how to make Thunderbird treat text like pure bloody text, and not change the displayed text when it sends an email out? thanks in advance. :( I added the sectioning here: http://lilypondwiki.tuxfamily.org/index.php?title=Doc Please don't edit that page. This is just because I'm apparently unable to use my mail client. :( - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
