Hi, RJP
You have been able to sum up a confuse and misleading debate in a few words,
and make some sensible considerations, but you are wrong on one pont.
> > Developers are *not* the only people who get a say in what ABC ought
> > to be, or what it should be used for.
You wrote:
> O yes they are! all the Linux software for abc is FREE,
> so I think nobody has the right to ask the `developers' to do ANYTHING.
> - without paying them that is!
>
> If someone makes a deal with me to do a programming job, then I do it
> the way they want it for pay - but not otherwise.
>
> If I program for myself - then I do EXACTLY what I want - and i would
> be surprised of most developers do not do just the same.
What in fact we are arguing about is the right of the developers on this
list - which, please remeber it, are in fact a minority of the developers of
the ac related softewares available to the community of the users - to be
the only ones entitled to decide about the future develpments of the
notation. The use of the guitar chords syntax to put text on the score is a
topic example of how a need expressed by the users has been incorporated in
the draft in a way which fits some of the available packages, but won't work
with a number of sharewares that 'speak abc'.
I agree with you that:
> There are quite a lot of composition packages around already - some
> of them shareware. Would it not be better to keep abc simple
> and concentrate on providing means of importing / exporting abc
> to some of these packages? - by providing parsing routines for
> selected shareware authors for ex.
In fact there is a number of excellent and often unexpensive notation
programs which already import/export the notation. Unfortunately, to work
with them we need an upadated standard to stuck to - not sure you have
noticed it, but the current standard is still one line of music, in the Key
of G, with four octaves of extension! If I had to complain with the
developers of the abc speaking package I have registered about the poor
support they are offering for the abc notation, the obvious replay would be
that to make it work correctly they will wait until the current one will be
updated.
This is why, in fact, I suggested we could discuss the opportunity to take
the draft as it is now - i.e. without any agreement about the V: lines - as
the new standard, and eventually update it again when the riotous developers
on this list will have found some agreement about that. Any further delay is
working against the widespread and the promotion of the abc notation, and
this is in fact the developers' (on this list) responsability.
> That way, abc can still be used to `sketch' the music & express
> the salient points, whilst adding the `bells and whistles' using
> something else that CAN ALREADY do it...
>
> This could of course, result in loss of detail when abc is re-exported,
> which one would have to accept, since any conceivable abc notation
> will still probably be insufficient for a lot of the advanced music
> typograpy..
>
> The `simplistic' users can continue to use abc for free, and those
> who actually want all the extra programming effort can pay -
> seems fair to me!
This is what I had in mind when I suggested that we should keep separate the
notation and what concers its future developments from the packages we use
to manipulate it (to print scores, generate Midis, an so on...). Not a
popular idea (to contrary belief?).
> The only other course open to someone determined not to pay
> for software but still wanting special funstions is to do
> what the rest of us do - get out gcc / emacs / TeX and
> get started!
Maybe an abc2mtx converter would help! How much would you charge for a
working one? Windows version...of course!
BYE!
Gianni
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
