Tracy Llenos <[email protected]> writes: > On Jan 15, 2009, at 10:06 AM, David Stone wrote: >> translator [=] >> >> The name of the transcriber into gabc. >> >> translation-date [=] >> >> The date the gabc was written. > > Sorry for entering this discussion so late; I think everything as > you've written (with Elie's following clarifications) is good, except > for these fields. Can we consider possibly renaming them? If I (well, > a random user) were reading the header of a gabc file, and saw these > two fields, I'd think they referred to a -vernacular- translation -- > which, of course, might not even be in the given gabc file. Maybe > transcriber/transcription-date, or even gabc-translator/date, to make > it clear it refers to the translation to gabc notation, and not a > translation of the chant text into another language?
I think I agree; I was only nervous of changing what existed, and also of stirring up the `Chant must be only in Latin' controversy (if you think that chant can only be in Latin, then there will never be translations into the vernacular, and so there is no ambiguity). Either of your suggestions seems good; let's see what Elie thinks. -- David Stone _______________________________________________ Gregorio-devel mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/gregorio-devel
