Skip to content

Conversation

@ahankinson
Copy link
Contributor

The changes here can be reviewed but the whole PR is a WIP as I do other passes through the document.

@ahankinson ahankinson self-assigned this Jan 6, 2026
I normalized it to "and" since that seems to be what Brook & Gould called it.
@jenniferward
Copy link
Collaborator

We're going with and then? I'll note that here: https://github.com/rism-digital/pae-code-spec/blob/main/EDITORIAL.md#style

@ahankinson
Copy link
Contributor Author

🤷 We could go either way. I chose and because that seems to be what it was called originally, but I'm just as happy with &.

Co-authored-by: Laurent Pugin <lxpugin@gmail.com>
@jenniferward
Copy link
Collaborator

I'd go with and since it's original but most importantly I agree it should be consistent. Even on the LC proposal document they have both.

ahankinson and others added 2 commits January 7, 2026 12:27
Co-authored-by: Laurent Pugin <lxpugin@gmail.com>
<p>
Accidentals MUST be interpreted by their written value, and MUST NOT be interpreted by their values
relative to a preceding accidental.
A note cannot be altered by the same accidental more than once within the same bar. The
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would drop it. The following sentence is better and enough.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants