> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: Urs Liska <li...@openlilylib.org>
> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 09:28:05 +0200
> Subject: Re: Advice on naming and structuring scholarLY command
>
> Hi Elaine,
>
> Am 15.06.2018 um 02:21 schrieb Flaming Hakama by Elaine:
>
>
> Actually I think \edmark and \edMarkup (or something along these lines)
>> might be the best compromise between the generality of the command,
>> expressiveness and practicality.
>>
>> Urs
>>
>>
> My $0.02 is that you should spell out \editorialMark.
>
> \edMark is not expressive enough.
>
> We're not in an 8.3 epoch, there is no cost to a few extra letters to say
> what you really mean.
>
>
> OK, good point.
> But (also in light of your other post on this thread) it "mark" really
> what it is?
> I think I'd really be fine with \editorialXXX, but while we're at it we
> should really pick the right term, isn't it?
>
> From my (limited) understanding of English a mark is not what we're
> encoding here. A mark would be a single item that describes or that points
> to something.
> What we have *is* a descriptive element, but it is not that our command
> inserts an "item that describes something" but our command itself describes
> something that is actually included in it. We encode some music, e.g. { s2
> } and describe it as being a "gap" with the attribute of its reason being
> damage by ink spill, for example. Or we can say that in { c8 [ d e f ] }
> the Beam "is" an editor's addition.
>
> Would it be correct to say that we "mark up" some music? From
> Merriam-Webster's definition this is totally alien (
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/markup), but isn't this
> exactly the meaning of "markup language"?
>
> If that's correct I think that \editorialMarkup would be fine.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Urs
>
Thanks for your interest in my opinion on this topic.
I understand your concern with using "Mark" as the basis of the name, since
while this \editorialMark will often (or always?) include a mark that
appears on the page, it also contains musical alternatives, so it is not
merely a type of Mark.
It seems that, in order to use \editorialMark, you need to identify a
segment of music, which is then addressed with annotations and alternatives.
So, here is a basic question that I think has import to this discussion:
Can the musical segments addressed by \editorialMark be nested and/or
overlapping?
If yes, they can be nested and/or overlapping, then each \editorialMark
could map to a single annotation/comment/remark. In which case, the
concept of \editorialMark as describing the specific mark makes sense, and
the musical segment is simply the entity on which the \editorialMark
operates.
If this is the case, possibly better names might be \editorialRemark or
\annotation.
However, if the musical segments addressed by \editorialMark-s must be
distinct from one another, then we might have several marks/topics/comments
in a single musical segment. In that case, maybe the command should be
named after the identification of this musical segment?
Based on some of the earlier posts, it seems like one of the outcomes of
this command is to attach unique IDs to the start and end of this musical
segment. If this is true, then maybe the command should be named with
regard to the fact that its main job is to identify and tag this musical
segment, to which the editorial remarks and the alternatives will apply.
If that is the case, maybe the command should be named something like
\identifyEditorialSegment or \editorialTag.
I don't really like these initial suggestions for this second conception of
the command, but I'd like to get clarity on what the essential requirements
are for any such usage. (Do you need to have alternatives? Do you need to
have editorial marks?)
Like the \consists discussion, I think that getting clearer on the actual
workings of the command may help inform an appropriate name.
HTH,
Elaine Alt
415 . 341 .4954 "Confusion is
highly underrated"
ela...@flaminghakama.com
Producer ~ Composer ~ Instrumentalist
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
