On Mon 19 Nov 2001 at 10:36AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Me - > > > Are these agreements (and others?) documented anywhere? > > James Allwright - > > >The abcusers list archives perhaps ? This is several years ago. > > Not much use if you weren't on the abcusers' list several years ago. Does > Guido Gonzato know about them? The point I was sort of sidling up to was > that if they aren't in the standard, in what sense are they "agreed" or > "resolved"? >
The "_ " construct is in the draft standard and probably documented in the application notes for a number of abc applications. The Q: field is documented reasonably well by the 1.6 standard. In the long distant past there was a similar problem caused by the standard stating that an implicit value for the L: field can be deduced from the value of the M: field. A naive reader of the standard might ask "Does the unit note length (L:) change if the meter (M:) changes in the middle of a tune ?". If they are tied together in this way, you get very peculiar results, so it is important that unit note length is stated or deduced once at the beginning of a tune and only changes thereafter if explicitly re-defined. Likewise, dynamic re-definition of tempo when something else changes is undesirable. I think this is really just common sense. James Allwright To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
