wil
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jef Moine wrote -
>I though from the previous discussion that the length of the chord
>was the length of the smallest note (and that's what abcm2ps does).
>Then, if you want a bigger length, you may add invisible rests.
>In a previous discussion, some people wanted the first note to
>give the length of the chord. But later, it seems that everybody
>agreed using the length of the smallest note.
Not how I recall it and I certainly did not agree that. Invisible rests were not, at the time, part of the standard. At least it confirms that different length notes in a chord should not be illegal.
I have just been trying to look up the original discussion in the archive. It appears under the threads "Abacus 1.0.0 launch" and "suggestions for [A4A2] notation " about a year ago.
The archive is not easy to follow. The discussion did not seem to come to any particular conclusion. I had started from "highest note" defines chord length and had been persuaded that this would not work. I suggested "first listed note" and there seemed to be a concensus in that direction. I changed Abacus accordingly. Then someone started insisting that "shortest note" was best without giving very clear reasons. I said that I was not prepared to change Abacus again until given a good reason to do so. After that, the thread rather fizzled out.
My case for "first listed note" is that it is unambiguous and independant of the musical content. The question to consider is "What is clearest and easiest to understand for the user?"
Bryan Creer
