Derek Lane-Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote :
>>Date: 12 Oct 2000 09:50:24 -0400
>> Derek> great problem. Why not simply have two separate key
>> Derek> signature codes, one, K:, that can contain the key/mode,
>> Derek> and the other, k: (say), that can contain the key
>> Derek> signature. That way you maintain compatibility, nearly,
>> Derek> with old abc files, but have full scope for exercising
>> Derek> personal preference. Any tune can have either or both
>> Derek> fields filled.
>>
Laura:
>>Surely not both. It would confuse people if they conflicted. The
>>proposal we're arguing about is that there should be more options on
>>the current K: field. I wouldn't support having a second field that
>>provides the same information in a different format.
>
Derek:
>I dunno, I think having two separate header fields would be cleaner and
>less confusing than having several options for the current K: field. If
>the two fields were both filled it provides some redundancy. If they were
>in conflict, you can generate an error message, that would be missed if
>there were only one.
This (IMHO) looks to me like the way of resolving this one, in that it
would satisfy both needs.
However.
As K: is already established as the 'key signature' field, and there are
thousands of abc files already out in the wild, would it not make sense
to leave K: as the 'key signature' and k: as the 'mode' (please excuse
descriptors!)
Steve Mansfield
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.lesession.demon.co.uk - abc music notation tutorial and other goodies
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
