On Thu, 4 Dec 2014 16:01:49 +0100 Dieter <d.gloet...@web.de> wrote: > WIth Tenor clef it looks much better. > > Regards, DIeter >
Dear Dieter, tenor clef is the right choice, but I think that the problem comes with the fact that every note has own stem direction inserted in the code, like, I suppose, happens to the xml code. One of the better feature of PMX is that not all the specifications of the note are needed for each note. Isn't possible to omit in the resulting PMX code the information about the stem direction (l or u), or, better, let the choice to the user if include or not this information in the resulting PMX code? The same happens for the octave specification of the note, but in this case the problem, I suppose, is bigger, because "if the note is more than a fourth away from the most recent note" octave number or +/- is requested. Nevertheless with those two features should be possible traspositions. A sincere compliment for your work. Luigi -- Luigi Cataldi <luica...@gmail.com> ------------------------------- TeX-music@tug.org mailing list If you want to unsubscribe or look at the archives, go to http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/tex-music
