Man, have we been over this before! I think the main arguments (for
getting K:, which I think we should) are that
1) It has proved its use for as long as notation has existed.
2) It gives the responsibility of figuring out modes and stuff to the
player, so no need for the typist to figure everything out. 'Cause he
might make the wrong decisions.
But, hey, I don't mess that much with modal stuff. Anyway my vote would be
for having the option of a K:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Phil Taylor wrote:
> Bryan Creer wrote:
> >Phil Taylor says -
> >
> >> If this change in standard
> >> becomes accepted, the vast majority of users will use it not just for
> >> the ambiguous tunes where it is appropriate, but for ALL transcriptions.
> >
> >You want to stop this change in standard because it is something the vast
> >majority of users want? As I said in my reply to Wendy Galovich's comments,
> >it isn't me that wants to restrict peoples choices.
> >
>
> Judging by the way in which most motorists treat speed limits, it would
> probably be correct to say that the vast majority of drivers would
> prefer their speed not to be limited by law. Of course, what you are
> proposing is that exceeding the speed limits should be optional, not
> mandatory, so that's OK then.
>
> Phil Taylor
>
>
> To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to:
>http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
>
>
--
Atte Andr� Jensen
"I don't think Microsoft is evil in itself; I just think that
they make really crappy operating systems." - Linus Torvalds
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
