Several comments here, Ali...
Larry DID mention that Karnak is not a place for critique before he offered his observations in passing, to be fair.
And both Larry and I are completely aware of the variations allowed when writing i.t. or i.p. or whatever, and that the variation betimes is even desirable.
And of course both of us are quite aware of the rondeau form. I think however that you had INTENDED to respond to the "short rondeau" form, but instead created a NEW TOPIC, instead of posting your attempt at the form in that particular thread.
You'd see that each thread is the NAME OF A PARTICULAR form, and an encouragement to PRACTICE that form within that thread. When someone makes a MISTAKE regarding the FORM itself, we often point that out, so that we don't practice something wrong. But again, we don't do critique. Sometimes, when one of us in our playing comes up with a nice piece, we encourage each other to post it for critique in HERMES HOMILEES....
which, by the way, I'd suggest that you do with this piece. I'd encourage you to do so. I'll have a number of comments and questions about yours when you post it there.
Your piece, however, is
not THE FORM 'short rondeau', which you'll discover when you go to the very beginning of that thread, where I posted Merlin's introduction of it to us. Before that time I had only been familiar with the standard
rondeau (link to that form in Karnak, which you can click to visit), of which we've written several, some posted in that thread.
I hope that clears things up.
Of course you're welcome to post a NEW TOPIC in Karnak, but not unless it is to introduce a form that is not already listed in Karnak. Okay?
deLighting in your sharing, Daniel