----- Message d'origine -----
De : "Rick McGowan" <email@example.com>
> Lukas P said:
> > I'd be interested to learn the rationale behind these choices. Is the
> > original proposal available anywhere?
> That's Perry Roland's original proposal, with a lot of examples. I'm not
> sure you'll get much rationale, however, for the names.
They seem to be misleading (I have several "amateurs" and reference books
saying that for they SEMIBREVIS (black) + FLAG-2 is semi-fusa black and not
a fusa black). They also question the presence of a SEMIBREVIS+FLAG-2 in
older material (pre-1420 let's say).
> Regarding yesterday's question by Patrik A.:
> > 1) Where is the Gregorian punctum (square dot) ? Is it unified with
> > dot, another shaped note (U+1D147) ? If so, why ?
> First, I believe what Patrik called "punctum", meaning the Gregorian
> "brevis" (terminology according to Apel's Harvard Dict article
> The (Gregorian) "brevis" (square) is unified with the square notehead
> U+1D147; and the (Gregorian) "semi-brevis" (diamond or lozenge shape) is
> unified with the U+1D1BA. Thus, Gregorian notation, medieval notation,
> modern notation require either separate fonts in practice, or need "font
> features" to differentiate subtly different shapes if required.
Why are the punctum and semi-brevis unified with U+1D147 and U+1D1BA since,
unless I err, they do not share the same value but only a visual similarity
> Please note that the SCOPE of the current set of musical symbols is mainly
> sufficient for general use in plain-text discussions and so forth. At
> some point, there will probably be another proposal for more characters.
> In particular, there might be a need for further neumes and more obscure
> symbols. However, gregorian notation is expected to make heavy use of
> ligatures, not all of which should be encoded. The quilisma in particular
> I think needs to be added in a subsequent proposal.
Indeed, thank you.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:20 EDT