GDP NR 1.6 Staff notation ready for public review
Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems NR 1.6 Staff notation has never been announced as ready for public review, although it seems to be in good shape (thanks to Till) and has been reviewed by members of the GDP team. So I'll do it now. Could all of you will a few minutes to spare please look through this section at http://kainhofer.com/~lilypond/Documentation/user/lilypond/Staff-notation.html#Staff-notation and post any comments, corrections or criticism to this list. Thanks. Trevor ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP NR 1.6 Staff notation ready for public review
Am Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:33:10 +0100 schrieb "Trevor Daniels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > and post any comments, corrections or criticism to this list. Thanks. Very well done. I only skimmed the text, but understood a lot of things I only imitated before. Certainly an important section. The only thing I could critisize is that the section starts with "... which are marked at the beginning of each line with either a bracket or a brace." But the first examples (single staves) have neither braces nor brackets. How about "which can be marked/grouped together" instead? Then note explicitly in "Grouping Staves" how/that these marks are created. Seb. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP NR 1.6 Staff notation ready for public review
Hi Trevor, On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:33:10AM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote: > Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems NR 1.6 Staff notation has > never been announced as ready for public review, although it seems to be > in good shape (thanks to Till) and has been reviewed by members of the > GDP team. So I'll do it now. > > Could all of you will a few minutes to spare please look through this > section at > > http://kainhofer.com/~lilypond/Documentation/user/lilypond/Staff-notation.html#Staff-notation > > and post any comments, corrections or criticism to this list. Thanks. I was planning on announcing this in a few days after looking it over a few more times, but thanks for doing this. It is definitely ready for review. Thanks, Patrick ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP NR 1.6 Staff notation ready for public review
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 4:31 AM, Sebastian Menge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Am Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:33:10 +0100 > schrieb "Trevor Daniels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> and post any comments, corrections or criticism to this list. Thanks. > > Very well done. I only skimmed the text, but understood a lot of things > I only imitated before. Certainly an important section. > > The only thing I could critisize is that the section starts with > > "... which are marked at the beginning of each line with either a > bracket or a brace." > > But the first examples (single staves) have neither braces nor > brackets. How about "which can be marked/grouped together" instead? Then > note explicitly in "Grouping Staves" how/that these marks are created. Yes, this needs to be reworded/adjusted. I will be able to fix it in a couple days time, unless Trevor manages to fix it before me. ;-) Thanks, Patrick ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP NR 1.6 Staff notation ready for public review
Patrick I'm sorry, I should of course have acknowledged your work as well as Till's, and Andrew for reviewing it. Keeping track of who has done what is not proving easy :( Trevor - Original Message - From: "Patrick McCarty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Trevor Daniels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Lilypond-User List" Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 6:14 PM Subject: Re: GDP NR 1.6 Staff notation ready for public review Hi Trevor, On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:33:10AM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote: Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems NR 1.6 Staff notation has never been announced as ready for public review, although it seems to be in good shape (thanks to Till) and has been reviewed by members of the GDP team. So I'll do it now. Could all of you will a few minutes to spare please look through this section at http://kainhofer.com/~lilypond/Documentation/user/lilypond/Staff-notation.html#Staff-notation and post any comments, corrections or criticism to this list. Thanks. I was planning on announcing this in a few days after looking it over a few more times, but thanks for doing this. It is definitely ready for review. Thanks, Patrick ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP NR 1.6 Staff notation ready for public review
Thanks Seb. I've been side-tracked, but finally got round to dealing with these comments. I've removed the misleading statement. It should appear in the online docs in a day or two. Trevor - Original Message - From: "Sebastian Menge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Trevor Daniels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Lilypond-User List" Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 12:31 PM Subject: Re: GDP NR 1.6 Staff notation ready for public review Am Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:33:10 +0100 schrieb "Trevor Daniels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: and post any comments, corrections or criticism to this list. Thanks. Very well done. I only skimmed the text, but understood a lot of things I only imitated before. Certainly an important section. The only thing I could critisize is that the section starts with "... which are marked at the beginning of each line with either a bracket or a brace." But the first examples (single staves) have neither braces nor brackets. How about "which can be marked/grouped together" instead? Then note explicitly in "Grouping Staves" how/that these marks are created. Seb. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP NR 1.6 Staff notation ready for public review
James E. Bailey wrote Monday, October 13, 2008 2:57 PM On 13.10.2008, at 12:33, Trevor Daniels wrote: Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems NR 1.6 Staff notation has never been announced as ready for public review, although it seems to be in good shape (thanks to Till) and has been reviewed by members of the GDP team. So I'll do it now. Could all of you will a few minutes to spare please look through this section at http://kainhofer.com/~lilypond/Documentation/user/lilypond/Staff-notation.html#Staff-notation and post any comments, corrections or criticism to this list. Thanks. Trevor 1) 1.6 Why doesn't the headword show something really specific to staff notation? ( ossia, cut-out score, tab/rhythm/drum staff?) I agree it would be better if it did. Do you have any suggestions for a replacement? 2) 1.6.1.1 Why doesn't the GregorianTranscriptionStaff make a little more obvious that bar lines aren't shown? 4/4 time signature with maybe, 6 quarter notes instead of just 4, so we see that there's no bar line. OK; done. 3) 1.6.2.1 Everything before \startStaff & \stopStaff seems like stuff from 5.3 (modifying properties). And it seems like the whole section is there to introduce \stopStaff \startStaff I agree. I'll look at moving it there. In general we try to avoid explicit \overrides in Chapter 1, but I might leave a few of the more useful ones there, perhaps as snippets. Trevor ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP NR 1.6 Staff notation ready for public review
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 10:32 AM, Trevor Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > James E. Bailey wrote Monday, October 13, 2008 2:57 PM >> 3) 1.6.2.1 Everything before \startStaff & \stopStaff seems like stuff >> from 5.3 (modifying properties). And it seems like the whole section is >> there to introduce \stopStaff \startStaff > > I agree. I'll look at moving it there. In general we > try to avoid explicit \overrides in Chapter 1, but I > might leave a few of the more useful ones there, perhaps > as snippets. I thought we wanted to leave all of these examples here. Since they cover all of the easy-to-tweak properties of StaffSymbol, I think it would be better to leave it "as-is". If we want to move the examples with \override to @snippets, I think it would be more appropriate to combine them into one or two snippets. -Patrick ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP NR 1.6 Staff notation ready for public review
Patrick McCarty wrote Thursday, October 16, 2008 8:15 PM
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 10:32 AM, Trevor Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
James E. Bailey wrote Monday, October 13, 2008 2:57 PM
3) 1.6.2.1 Everything before \startStaff & \stopStaff seems like stuff
from 5.3 (modifying properties). And it seems like the whole section is
there to introduce \stopStaff \startStaff
I agree. I'll look at moving it there. In general we
try to avoid explicit \overrides in Chapter 1, but I
might leave a few of the more useful ones there, perhaps
as snippets.
I thought we wanted to leave all of these examples here. Since they
cover all of the easy-to-tweak properties of StaffSymbol, I think it
would be better to leave it "as-is". If we want to move the examples
with \override to @snippets, I think it would be more appropriate to
combine them into one or two snippets.
Well, this section seems quite different from all the others in the NR
in that it documents -all- the properties of StaffSymbol rather than
just the useful ones. I don't think 'line-positions or 'width are useful
to typical or even advanced users, do you? Leaving them in simply
dilutes the usefulness of this section. The key properties are
'line-count and 'thickness, and the predefs \startStaff and \stopStaff.
The remainder should be moved to NR 5 ('line-positions and 'width)
or snippets, with some explanation of what they might be used for.
And if we can't say what they might be used for why are they there
at all?
I'm willing to do this, but if you'd rather do it I'm happy with that too.
Trevor
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP NR 1.6 Staff notation ready for public review
Trevor Daniels wrote: > > > >> 1) 1.6 Why doesn't the headword show something really specific to staff >> notation? ( ossia, cut-out score, tab/rhythm/drum staff?) > > I agree it would be better if it did. Do you have any suggestions > for a replacement? > > > Just came to my mind: what about some modern music which has the habit of not printing pauses, so there are single staves scattered around the page. This is not Beethoven, sure, but it would nicely show how to do something like that. Is there any this kind of music with a free license? till - * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * LilyPond-Hilfe auch auf deutsch im http://www.lilypondforum.de/index.php LilyPond-Forum . -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/GDP-NR-1.6-Staff-notation-ready-for-public-review-tp19952444p20030893.html Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP NR 1.6 Staff notation ready for public review
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 1:52 AM, Trevor Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Patrick McCarty wrote Thursday, October 16, 2008 8:15 PM
>
>> I thought we wanted to leave all of these examples here. Since they
>> cover all of the easy-to-tweak properties of StaffSymbol, I think it
>> would be better to leave it "as-is". If we want to move the examples
>> with \override to @snippets, I think it would be more appropriate to
>> combine them into one or two snippets.
>
> Well, this section seems quite different from all the others in the NR
> in that it documents -all- the properties of StaffSymbol rather than
> just the useful ones. I don't think 'line-positions or 'width are useful
> to typical or even advanced users, do you? Leaving them in simply
> dilutes the usefulness of this section. The key properties are
> 'line-count and 'thickness, and the predefs \startStaff and \stopStaff.
> The remainder should be moved to NR 5 ('line-positions and 'width)
> or snippets, with some explanation of what they might be used for.
> And if we can't say what they might be used for why are they there
> at all?
Okay, I see what you mean. Leaving the 'line-count, 'thickness, and
the two \startStaff and \stopStaff examples would be best.
> I'm willing to do this, but if you'd rather do it I'm happy with that too.
Feel free to do this, since I'm not sure of the best place to move the
other examples.
Thanks,
Patrick
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP NR 1.6 Staff notation ready for public review
Till Rettig wrote Friday, October 17, 2008 11:39 AM Trevor Daniels wrote: (in response to) 1) 1.6 Why doesn't the headword show something really specific to staff notation? ( ossia, cut-out score, tab/rhythm/drum staff?) I agree it would be better if it did. Do you have any suggestions for a replacement? Just came to my mind: what about some modern music which has the habit of not printing pauses, so there are single staves scattered around the page. This is not Beethoven, sure, but it would nicely show how to do something like that. Is there any this kind of music with a free license? I can't see any on mutopia, but I did see an arrangement of Danse Napolitaine from Swan Lake which shows trumpet, tambourine and piano staves. See Mutopia-2006/12/22-896. Would this be better? Trevor ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP NR 1.6 Staff notation ready for public review
Patrick McCarty wrote Friday, October 17, 2008 6:54 PM
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 1:52 AM, Trevor Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Patrick McCarty wrote Thursday, October 16, 2008 8:15 PM
I thought we wanted to leave all of these examples here. Since they
cover all of the easy-to-tweak properties of StaffSymbol, I think it
would be better to leave it "as-is". If we want to move the examples
with \override to @snippets, I think it would be more appropriate to
combine them into one or two snippets.
Well, this section seems quite different from all the others in the NR
in that it documents -all- the properties of StaffSymbol rather than
just the useful ones. I don't think 'line-positions or 'width are useful
to typical or even advanced users, do you? Leaving them in simply
dilutes the usefulness of this section. The key properties are
'line-count and 'thickness, and the predefs \startStaff and \stopStaff.
The remainder should be moved to NR 5 ('line-positions and 'width)
or snippets, with some explanation of what they might be used for.
And if we can't say what they might be used for why are they there
at all?
Okay, I see what you mean. Leaving the 'line-count, 'thickness, and
the two \startStaff and \stopStaff examples would be best.
For now I've just moved 'line-positions and 'width into a new section in
NR 5.3. As StaffSymbol is fundamental to scaling this would be a
good place to expand and explain this and magstep, as well as all the
other properties of StaffSymbol. At the moment bits of scaling are
scattered all over the docs.
Trevor
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
