Bryan Creer wrote:
>Phil Taylor wrote -
>
>>All extensions start out as program-specific.
>
>Why? Why shouldn't they start out as proposals for discussion and feedback
>from other developers and even users? That way the idea might be improved on
>and clashes avoided and the resulting definition included in the standard for
>all to see.
Two reasons.
1. Anything but the most simple extension needs some experimentation
to find out what works. You've got to do it first, then try it out with
a lot of music to see if it's a good idea.
2. If we had to wait for agreement nothing would ever get done.
>>If they turn out to be useful they get adopted by other programs.
>
>If other developers can be bothered, can find any documentation, aren't
>openly hostile to the person who originated it, can work out which of the
>several versions is the definitive one. (When I asked which version of V: I
>should use, I was told to stop whining.)
Nobody's hostile to anyone here (present company excepted, of course).
Documentation is a problem of course. I've never been able to figure
out how the %%staves directive is supposed to work.
>>The w: field for words started in abc2ps and is now supported by most
>programs.
>>M:none started in BarFly.
>
>Well, at least these made it into the draft standard.
>
>>middle = started in Muse and is now supported by BarFly.
>>Use of abc for Gregorian chant notation started in BarFly and is now
>>supported by Melody Assistant.
>
>Which these didn't.
middle = was proposed after the draft standard appeared. I never bothered
proposing Gregorian chant as a general standard as it's such a specialised
area. I was quite surprised that Melody Assistant adopted it.
>>Multivoice abc using V: started in abc2midi and (at least in its basics)
>>is now supported by most programs.
>
>In at least two incompatible versions (see above).
Not completely incompatible (see above).
>>Irritating though it is for users,
>
>But who gives a *@%$ about them?
>
>>that seems to be the way that the language progresses.
>
>But it doesn't have to be. What is the standards committee for?
>
>I notice that in your list of examples you don't include the !symbol! syntax
>which is in the draft standard but, judging by a recent exchange, you are
>very unlikely to implement in BarFly.
The draft standard is just that. It represents one person's proposals
put up for discussion. I've made my opinion on that section clear on
several occasions, and will continue to do so.
Phil Taylor
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
