[mailing] [mb-style] 'Op. XX No. YY' or 'Op. XX, No. YY'

[mll]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marco Sola
> Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 7:55 PM
> To: MusicBrainz style discussion
> Subject: Re: [mailing] [mb-style] 'Op. XX No. YY' or 'Op. XX, No. YY'
> 
> Il Monday, November 27, 2006 6:47 PM
> mll <webmll at laposte.net> ha scritto:
> 
> > the case where a  track is numbered 'Op. XX No. YY', like 
> 'Mazurka in 
> > B major, Op. 63 No. 1' (example at 
> > 
> http://musicbrainz.org/track/576a7830-8240-4611-804c-256ee0e4b
> ce3.html).
> >
> > I can see to ways of expressing it:
> > 1) 'Mazurka in B major, Op. 63 No. 1'
> > OR
> > 2) 'Mazurka in B major, Op. 63, No. 1'
> 
> (Thanks for this.)
> 
> To me that I'm against all commas in TrackTitile 1 is of 
> course preferable.
> 
> Just be aware that there's a lot of  'Mazurka in B major, Op. 
> 63/1' around: 
> are they allowed? should they be changed? are they simply not 
> part of this rule that is only about commas?

Not explicitly allowed in CSG AFAIR. It's not only commas, so yes, 

3) 'Mazurka in B major, Op. 63/1' is another choice

But still I favour explicitly writing 'No.'. SO I still vote for 1)

> 
> > And if we come to an agreement, should we take out the 
> heavy gun of a 
> > RFV? This is an addition to the rule, not a change per se.
> 
> I can't see the difference: an addition is a change.

I don't want to start a polemic, but in the spirit of things (not in the
letter), filling a hole in a rule should raise less argument than changing
an existing subpart of the rule.

MLL

> 
> Ciao
> 
> MArco (ClutchEr2) 
>