search

rism-digital / pae-code-spec

Issue tracker and website for the Plaine and Easie specification
https://plaine-and-easie.info/
0 stars 0 forks source link

Order of sharps or flats in key signature #15

Closed carlolic closed 6 months ago

carlolic commented 3 years ago

We should decide if we want ordered sharps/flats in the key signature or allow arbitrary sequences. For example: do we tolerate D major written as $xCF or it must be $xFC?

I found 225 cases with wrong order of sharps/flats (including cases like $Bb), see attached list. The real number of those could be slightly higher than this, since grammatically wrong key signatures are excluded from the analysis.

The actual paec-grammar version does not check the order of sharps/flats.

ahankinson commented 3 years ago

I think this is a case where we can write the expectation in the spec, but not necessarily enforce it in the grammar.

e.g., "Sharps and flats SHOULD be written in key signature order"

The reason that we shouldn't put it in the grammar is that there are some valid use cases where sharps and flats don't necessarily follow the order.

carlolic commented 3 years ago

Ok. This means that we should not correct the cases listed above, with key signatures showing the "wrong" order? Or maybe we should at least correct cases like $Bb ?

ahankinson commented 3 years ago

$Bb is wrong, so yes, that should be corrected. Without seeing the original source, though, it would not be good to change what the cataloguer wrote.

carlolic commented 3 years ago

Related to this issue also another finding: ca. 500 incipits have key signatures with "missing" sharps/flats (and in some cases also "wrong" order), e.g. $xFCD, $bF, $xGC

I guess we should allow and keep them. Right?

jenniferward commented 3 years ago

Let's talk about this tomorrow. We would see xCF as a mistake to be corrected.