Ordering of dots of division

[ahankinson]

Mensural notation allows for dots of division, and PAE uses the . to indicate this.

However, in CWMN PAE the dot must follow the duration value to indicate a dot of augmentation.

This is just a sense check to see if it's still OK for the dot of division in Mensural to also follow the duration value? Or should it be placed somewhere else?

[lpugin]

Yes, I think it is fine to have it following the duration in mensural notation too and not as division dots. In my opinion we should see mensural PAEC not as strict mensural notation. Generally speaking, I am willing to revise the Verovio implementation and focus only on the visual aspect. This would mean a few points to be relaxed, including allowing multiple dots, which are clearly duration dots.

[ahankinson]

OK; does that mean that the duration is also required for a dot of division? In other words, would you ever need just the dot and no duration?

[lpugin]

I don't think we have (and will have) such thing as a division dot. So I would not expect to see just the dot. So it is really some pseudo-mensural notation.

[ahankinson]

OK... so should I remove this paragraph?

                For Mensural notation the period character <code>.</code> MAY be used to indicate a dot of division to
                alter the interpretation of ternary values. Multiple successive dots of division MUST NOT occur.

[lpugin]

Yeah, I think so. The more I think about it and look at the data we have, the more I think looking at this as real mensural notation does not work. I would suggest to look at it as essentially a visual indication. I think the only real point we need to look at it time signatures. We should probably discuss it in person.