From: John Hudson (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Jan 04 2004 - 13:48:25 EST
At 09:56 AM 1/4/2004, Tom Gewecke wrote:
>Does it make any difference that in the case of Indic scripts the Standard
>provides elaborate rules for the way this should be done in response to the
>input of virama and various other combining and joiner characters, while
>there is nothing like this for Byzantine music?
The difference it makes is that you will need to define your own rules.
Unicode encodes musical symbols so that they can be referred to in
documents, and makes no claims to being able to provide a complete
notational system based on this encoding. The identity of a musical symbol
*in use* is of type, duration, pitch and relationship. [In modern notation,
the relationship between notes is defined independently of the type,
duration and pitch; in Gregorian plainchant (and I suspect Byzantine
notation, although I'm not an expert on the latter), some relationships may
be defined at the character level, e.g. by encoding a podatus or other
neum. However, it is not necessary to encode complete neums in an
notational system: neums could be built dynamically from single puncta.]
Unicode encodes only the type of symbol: all the other aspects of its
identity -- duration, pitch and relationship -- must be defined above the
character level. Personally, I'm not sure that the Unicode encoding for
Byzantine (and Gregorian) symbols is even useful in a notational system: it
is handy for referring to symbols in text, but in a notational system you
ideally want to encode more of the identity of a symbol than just its type.
Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com
Vancouver, BC firstname.lastname@example.org
What was venerated as style was nothing more than
an imperfection or flaw that revealed the guilty hand.
- Orhan Pamuk, _My name is red_
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jan 04 2004 - 14:23:45 EST