At 01:04 PM 13-10-00 +0200, Atte Andr� Jensen wrote:
>That's nice! Only problem (for my logic) is that puts G over Em (makes
>sense though thought of as some kind of newline) so if I wanna have these
>chords (this is not abc-code, I leave out notes and write only chords
>and barlines for this purpose):
>
> Em7 A7
>C6 Am7 | Dm7 G7 | C6 Am7 | Dm7 G7 |
>
>I have to write
>
>";C6" ";Am7" | ";Dm7" ";G7" | "Em7;C6" "A7;Am7" | ";Dm7" ";G7" |
>
>so my logic would be to have the chord after ; as the alternative which
>should be put on top. This off course gets even worse if you have three
>alternatives at some spots. I guess it's too late to change that now? How
>about [1] having a %% comment that let's you switch between the two ways
>of thinking?
I don't think that the standard should use words like "top" and "bottom" at
all. The standard should specify a syntax for describing alternative sets
of chords, it's then up to a formatting program to have options that define
where the alternative sets of chords should be printed.
Bob
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
