Release 1.1

[tardate]

I've tagged a "1.1" release in the the github repo
http://github.com/tardate/jtab/tree/master.Some of the highlights:

* All chords can be represented in any position on the fretboard e.g.
Cm7 Cm7:3 Cm7:6

* Now allows shorthand tab entry of 6-six chords e.g. X02220 (A chord
at nut), 8.10.10.9.8.8 (C chord at the 8th fret)

* jTab diagrams now inherit foreground and background color of the
enclosing HTML element

* When entering single-string tab, can reference strings by number
(1-6) or by note in standard tuning (EAGDBe)

* The chord library with fingerings has been extended to cover pretty
much all common - and uncommon - chord variants (m, 6, m6, 69, 7, m7,
maj7, 7b5, 7#5, m7b5, 7b9, 9, m9, maj9, add9, 13, sus2, sus4, dim,
dim7, aug).

* It has been integrated with TiddlyWiki: jTabTwiki (http://
jtab.tardate.com/jtabtwiki-help.htm) combines the guitar chord and tab
notation power of jTab with the very popular TiddlyWiki single-file
wiki software. Together, they allow you to instantly setup a personal
guitar tab wiki/notebook.


Also see the blog post: http://tardate.blogspot.com/2009/08/jtab-11-guitar-tab-for-web-gets-update.html

Regards,
Paul

[Heller]

Great stuff Paul...
Is it just me or does it seem to be rendering faster as well? I found
that with some 40 bars of tab opening a tiddler was taking long but
seems a bit quicker now...
It has come to be that I just cannot do without the assist of jtab
anymore :-)
Are the bend, release, hammer-on and pull-off 'pretty notations' still
in the cards?
Regards Rob

[Paul Gallagher]

That's great Rob.

Yes, there seem to have been some minor performance improvements (wasn't a goal, but the algorithms are a little more efficient I think). Also the browsers seem to be getting better and better - so most of the gains may be down to them;-)

At least for Firefox and Chrome. Internet Explorer is a big problem though - in IE8, we've actually seen performance go backwards by about 10x when compared to IE7 (for any SVG/VML rendering).  If I was a conspiracy theorist, I'd say it might have something to do with a little product called silverlight;-)

'pretty notations' are definitely still on the cards ( http://github.com/tardate/jtab/issues/#issue/9 ). Pretty much next in the queue along with a way of scaling the diagrams.

I really appreciate the support and your involvement Rob; don't hesitate to let me know if something's not working right for you, or there's other things to fix.

One area I'm expecting you will report on at some point is chord fingerings;-) With so many chords and fingerings to cover, I do not doubt that errors slipped though the "QA" (such as it was!)

Regards,
Paul

[Heller]

> At least for Firefox and Chrome. Internet Explorer is a big problem though -
> in IE8, we've actually seen performance go backwards by about 10x when
> compared to IE7 (for any SVG/VML rendering).  If I was a conspiracy
> theorist, I'd say it might have something to do with a little product called
> silverlight;-)

He he I am a firefox fan myself fortunately and IE8 is indeed more of
a 'performance problem' than a browser..
I would like to use Chrome but cannot get tiddlywiki to save on my
Vista even with suggested TiddlySave.jar...

> One area I'm expecting you will report on at some point is chord
> fingerings;-) With so many chords and fingerings to cover, I do not doubt
> that errors slipped though the "QA" (such as it was!)

Actually exact fingering on chords is not really important, just a
preferred suggestion really as everbody has
different hands and one should finger a chord as one feels most
comfortable with and whatever suits a smooth
chord progression. But as I go along and learn new chords and use
known ones I will check to see that at least
the correct shapes are indicated. There are quite a few chord finder
sites on the internet I will see if they provide
any sort of output that we could use to verify the jtab definitions...

Regards Rob

[Paul Gallagher]

Hi Rob,

Actually, my chrome tests are "qualified" too: I've not got past the save test with TiddlyWiki. TiddlySave.jar seems to have had middling success - heard some people had it working, but many not. Hum. Pity, because it looks damn good in Chrome, and the speed ... omg!

And on the fingerings - yep, don't expect you to laboriously check them all, but any odd ones you find, do tell!

Regards,
Paul

[Heller]

Paul,
Last night I was converting $1.0.$2.1.$3.2.$4.2.$5.0 to x02210 which
simplifies things a lot.
I noticed however that no matter how many spaces you have between
x02210 x02210 it
always only renders to one space whereas before I used the spaces to
indicate timing.
Is this a difficult issue to fix? For now I will just keep to the more
extensive notation $1.0 etc...

Also I was transcribing a song and was introduced to a Em7# chord
which I did not find in the
jtab chord 'library'. I just inserted it myself so no problems there,
but how do you want to deal
with such cases? A blog or site somewhere, where we could report
omitted definitions?

Regards
Rob

[Paul Gallagher]

Hi Rob,
Thanks for these .. I'll see if I can find the missing spaces for you;-)

Em7# is not handled specifically because its expecting Fm7 in western standard scale. the distinction is actually beyond my music theory understanding I'm afraid  - can you tell more?

In terms of reporting issues, I'm quite casual for now so happy to take reports via the mailing list.
I'll be adding these to the issues list on github ( http://github.com/tardate/jtab/issues ) so the other option is to sign up for a github account and you can post directly to the issues list.

Regards,
Paul

[Paul Gallagher]

Rob: I logged the spacing issue in github: http://github.com/tardate/jtab/issues/#issue/16

On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Heller <rob.v...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Jason Ong]

I'll 2nd Paul (tardate) here and say that Em7# doesn't really make sense. 

If the # (sharp) is refering to Em then it becomes Fm7 like what Paul had said. 

If it's the flatted 7th that you're sharping, then it'll become a Eminmaj7 :)

Regards,

Jason Ong

--

Sent from my iPhone 

[Paul Gallagher]

Hey Rob,

I think my mind just read "E#m7" when you wrote "Em7#". Not sure you actually meant that, or the sharping the 7th like Jason guessed.

Maybe if you can you post the actual notes definition, lets have a look at it and figure out what might need to be added.

Regards,
Paul

[Heller]

OK I was looking at a song Wonderwall instruction video from VGuitar
(Ben Lowrey) and he mentions a Em9# chord as 022033
and if I do a reverse search at chordfind.com on 022033 it gives me
Em7 which is 022030 not exactly the same?!?!!?
So I was thinking it would be a good idea to be able to define chords
in a own library, something like an extension on the existing
definitions through an include on an external file or such like?!?!!

[Jason Ong]

Hi Heller

022033 is indeed Em7. Here's a little theory.

022033 = E,B,E,G,D,G

022030 = E,B,E,G,D,E

Em = E + G + B (1 + 3b + 5)

Em7 = E + G + B + D (1 + 3b + 5 +7b)

As you can see from the notes of the chords, they're the same chords
but slightly different voicing. The former having a "brighter" sound
because of the high G.

Em9# is therefore not a correct way of naming the chord.

Regards,
Jason Ong

--
Sent from my iPhone