On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, [iso-8859-1] Erik Ronstr�m wrote:

> I think I'd get your point anyway.

I don't think you do get my point.  It seems self-evident to me that ABC
is pseudo-staff notation.  You have made it clear *that* you disagree, but
not *why*.  Where else do you think ABC got the concepts of whole notes,
beaming, barlines, etc., if not from staff notation?  It's hard for me to
imagine how you define pseudo-staff notation, if ABC doesn't qualify.

> My point was that we should have a language that is precise in it's
> *syntax*, that is, the way in which music is notated and the way in
> which the language should be interpreted. In other words: what is
> allowed and what is not.

I agree, and there is *nothing* imprecise about ^f-|f if you simply amend
the standard to codify the rule -- a rule that most people seem to be
following anyway.  I still see no advantage to using ^f-|^f.

> In other words: don't blame the abc source for not looking in a
> specific way when converted into staff notation. Blame the program!
> And if you *do* expect the staff to look in a certain way: don't use
> abc - use a music typesetting program or whatever.

I disagree.  The ABC standard is full of indications that it has
historically been intended primarily as a source for *generating* staff
notation.  See the section on beaming...  Beaming is meaningless outside
of staff notation.  There are also many instances of language like
"character x is used to generate symbol y."  There's even an ASCII
*drawing* of a five-line staff, with ledger lines, in the standard itself!  
The basic philosophy seems to be "draw what I tell you to draw."

So, I would counter your suggestion by saying that if you want to write
stand-alone notation, irrespective of how it would appear on the staff,
maybe *you* are the one who shouldn't be using abc.

(Whether or not abc *should* be stand-alone is another question entirely.  
My point is simply that is is not stand-alone *now*.  Not by a long shot.)

John

To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Reply via email to