[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote :
>--------
>
>Steve Mansfield writes:
>| 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!)
>
>Methinks you got it backwards. Currently K: doesn't include a key
>signature, only tonic+mode. The term "key signature" in standard
>staff notation means a list of accidentals, not tonic and mode. If
>you want a new header line for the signature, it should be k: so as
>not to collide with existing notation.
>
Sorry for any confusion.
I meant merely to propose that the existing K: line carry on doing what
the K: line has always done, and, for those who wanted it, the k: line
show the list of accidentals. My poor choice of terminology has merely
served to add yet more cotton wool to the debate.
It was only ever intended as a possible proposed resolution, rather than
any indication that I was actually remotely interested in seeing such an
arcane feature further clutter up the abc specification :-)
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
