Re: [musicxml2ly] unwanted staves and voices [was: missing <voice>-element in chorded note leads to unwanted additional staff]

[pls]

Hi Marek,

now the summaries and descriptions of the issues got mixed up. I suggest the 
following:

Issue 2879: [musicxml2ly] spurious staff
if an .xml file contains only <staff> elements with value "1" (i.e. 
<staff>1</staff>) AND no <voice> element in a chorded note musicxml2ly 
erroneously thinks that there are several staves. (I haven't tested what 
happens when there are several <staff> elements with different values in an 
.xml fle.

Test file: 
https://www.dropbox.com/s/l9mt7iqd38lqqng/unwanted_staves.xml
The result is:

\new Staff <<
         \context Staff ="1" << 
             \context Voice = "PartPOneVoiceOne" { \voiceOne \PartPOneVoiceOne }
             \context Voice = "PartPOneVoiceNone" { \voiceTwo 
\PartPOneVoiceNone }

This leads to a second unwanted empty staff.

Without any <staff> element in the .xml file the result is:

\new Staff <<
         \context Staff << 
             \context Voice = "PartPOneVoiceOne" { \voiceOne \PartPOneVoiceOne }
             \context Voice = "PartPOneVoiceNone" { \voiceTwo 
\PartPOneVoiceNone }

and there is NO unwanted additional staff!

In this case musicxml2ly should be taught to ignore the <staff>-elements if 
there is only one staff.


Issue 2867: [musicxml2ly] unwanted voices

if a <note> element contains a <chord/> element but no <voice> element 
musicxml2ly puts the chorded note without a <voice>-element in an own voice 
(PartPOneVoiceNone) instead of placing the notes in a chord construct (< a' 
c''>1) in the same voice.

In this case musicxml2ly should be taught to be tolerant and automatically 
assign notes containing <chord/>-elements to the voice of the first note of the 
chord. (In MusicXML the first note of a chord does not contain a 
<chord/>-element.)
Test file:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8bep4ly69xfwfmt/unwanted_voices.xml

hth
patrick

Am 03.10.2012 um 22:22 schrieb Marek Klein:

> Hello, Patrick
> 2012/10/3 pls <address@hidden>
> Hi,
> I described two issues and posted two test files in this thread.
> hth
> patrick
> 
> 
> I have added the second issue as 
> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2879 - please, check it.
> It is not easy for me to create proper tracker issue for the first case. 
> Would you please be so kind and try to sumarize it?
> 
> Also, should the issue 
> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2867 be marked as invalid?
> 
> Marek
> bug squad member
> 
>