Re: GDP: fourth rearrangement

[Valentin Villenave]

2007/9/14, Mats Bengtsson <address@hidden>:

> - In Rhythms, I would like to rearrange the order a bit, to put the most
>   common aspects at the top. For example:

Yes, this is precisely what I thought when I first read your plan
Graham; that's almost funny to find a long list of more and more
complex features with always longer names, and then just: "bars" and
"Rests"  :)
I like Mats' order very much.

> - You have a much better feeling for the English language than I do, but
>   do you think that we should keep the current mixture of "staff" and
> "stave"
>   to denote the same thing, for example in the subsection titles within
> "Staff notation"?

Specially 1.4.1 "displaying staffs"; I always thought that "staves"
was the most common form for the plural (haven't seen much "staffs"
while translating the doc): can you tell us about it Graham?

> - How about adding some section like "Other typesetting features", which
> could
>   contain things that don't really fit in anywhere else, like the four I
> mentioned above.

IMO, it's generally preferable to avoid any "Other" titles. (which is
why I suggested to rename 8.4.7 and 9.3.9). but that doesn't mean a
subsection can't be created with a more relevant title (if there's
any).

> - Again, I might not have the right intuition for English language, but
> how about
>   replacing "Text in a score" with something along the lines of "Textual
> annotations"

Or "Textual indications" (which we often use in the French translation)

> - Why doesn't Text markup commands belong under 1.17.2 Text markup?

Because the two list pages are very different from the others (they're
generated like the program Reference). I think Graham's right to put
them at the end of the chapter. Maybe we  could emphasize that
difference, later, by renaming "overview of text markup commands" in
"Text markup commands Reference" or something...

-I'm not very happy with "staff notation" coming so soon. I think it
would be better after "note heads and stems", maybe like this:

            1.1 Pitches
         o 1.2 Rhythms
         o 1.3 Expressive marks
         o 1.5 Repeats
         o 1.6 Polyphony
         o 1.8 Note heads and stems
         o 1.4 Staff notation
         o 1.7 Educational use

What about it?

Regards,
Valentin