I. Oppenheim wrote: >On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Phil Taylor wrote: > >> Over the past year or so, this group has become >> dominated by discussion of abcm2ps; > >Probably because it is the best and least "limited" ABC >implementation around: it implements an extensive set >of features, is actively developed, runs on all >computer platforms that we use and gives excellent >ouput quality!
Have you ever used any other abc software? >> So, if we are going to hand over the development of >> the standard to one person, > >No one suggested that just 1 person should do all of >the work. > >> He is going to be familiar with programs which do >> fast onscreen display of abc music, programs which >> play abc, programs which do musical analysis or use >> abc for archival or database purposes etc. > >Phil, this are all implementation specific issues which >a standard should not address. As you indicated >yourself, ABC is just an *abstract* computer >representation of a computer score; all that the >standard should do is to define this representation in >an abstract way. Whether the *concrete* ABC files are >to be played, displayed, printed or analyzed is up to >the end user. What the internal data format of the >handling program should be, is up to the software >developer and depends on the task at hand. Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Are you suggesting that a standard can be developed without giving any consideration to what it's going to be used for? Phil Taylor To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
