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

Fixed: Prose for encoding grace notes #99

Closed ahankinson closed 1 month ago

ahankinson commented 1 month ago

Fixes #75 Fixes #22

github-actions[bot] commented 1 month ago

PR Preview Action v1.4.7 :---: Preview removed because the pull request was closed. 2024-05-27 13:02 UTC

ahankinson commented 1 month ago

Good point, although I'm really not sure how they are interpreted? If I had a quarter note as a appogiatura, does that really take a full beat?

lpugin commented 1 month ago

They are just visual durations, but you need them. Otherwise the current duration will apply. It is the opposite with acciaccature. 8 is always implied and no duration must be given (including 8 as it is now in Verovio, but we could relax this and not yield a warning for 4Cg8F4E

ahankinson commented 1 month ago

OK, that's fine. The way that it was previously written, it could be interpreted that "takes rhythmic duration" means "takes the full rhythmic duration written" instead of "it's just a visual indicator of the value of the note."

BaMikusi commented 1 month ago

Sorry to be behind with all of this, but there was no way for me to even look at this flood of GitHub notifications arriving in the past few days... In any case, IMO the SHOULD is too forgiving in both of these sentences: (1) Consecutive single acciaccatura SHOULD NOT occur. (2) Consecutive single appogiatura SHOULD NOT occur.

With (1), I don't even see how a series of consecutive g acciaccature could be visually rendered in a meaningful way.

And if with (2) we do not complete close the gate before those willing to use the grace notes for the rendering of entire incipits in lower case (so to speak), we shall keep seeing in our incipits diverse cues erroneuosly integrated from the other parts.

So, I would argue, we should simply say MUST in both cases.

BaMikusi commented 1 month ago

... and then, of course, the related sentences should also be adjusted:

i.e. (IMHO) in both cases rather MUST in place of SHOULD.

(BTW, at the beginning of the first of the above sentences there is a typo in "Multple".)

ahankinson commented 1 month ago

Consecutive Acciaccature were disallowed here:

https://github.com/rism-digital/pae-code-spec/pull/126/files

It's still open, though, so the change hasn't gone through yet.

ahankinson commented 1 month ago

we do not complete close the gate before those willing to use the grace notes for the rendering of entire incipits in lower case (so to speak), we shall keep seeing in our incipits diverse cues erroneuosly integrated from the other parts.

Disallowing consecutive single appogiatura won't really stop this, since those could still be all encoded in consecutive groups.

qq44GGr/qq''DDr/qqEEr/qq2Dr/qq4CCr/qq'BBr/qqAAr/qq2Gr/

BaMikusi commented 1 month ago

You are right that this encoding would still be a way around, but I don't really see what we gain by allowing several single-note q characters one after the other, and so I think we should simply exclude this option -- and thereby still make the leak, through which such nonsense may creep in, a bit narrower.

lpugin commented 1 month ago

I agree it would be better to forbid consecutive single appogiature.