In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
First congratulations to Guido on putting this together - it does seem to
include most of the updated features. I have stayed out of most of the
discussions on what to include/exclude from the standard, but would like to give
a group
of
In a message dated 21/07/2003 11:59:49 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Subj: Re: [abcusers] Announcement: ABC 2.0.0 draft online
Date: 21/07/2003 11:59:49 GMT Standard Time
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent from the Internet
1
On Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 09:37:48AM +0200, Guido Gonzato wrote:
for those interested, I have uploaded the A proposal for a new ABC 2.0.0
standard (rev. 14/7/2003) on my site. Have a look:
http://abcplus.sourceforge.net/#ABC%20Plus%20draft
It took me quite some time to get this
From: Richard Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hear here !
(I'm never quite sure which that should be)
Hear! hear! - you are inviting speople to listen to what somone has
just said. :-)
Dave
David Webber
Author of MOZART the music processor for Windows -
http://www.mozart.co.uk
Member of the
On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 10:28:59AM +0100, David Webber wrote:
From: Richard Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hear here !
(I'm never quite sure which that should be)
Hear! hear! - you are inviting speople to listen to what somone has
just said. :-)
... to what someone at this location just
From: Richard Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But, one little thought occurred to me, re the much-discussed and
little-agreed ! staff-break. With no prejudice as to whether
this ought
to exist, etc etc (except that, the more I think about it, the
more I'd
like it, so, if it helps ...) it needn't
Richard Robinson wrote:
But, one little thought occurred to me, re the much-discussed and
little-agreed ! staff-break. With no prejudice as to whether this ought
to exist, etc etc (except that, the more I think about it, the more I'd
like it, so, if it helps ...) it needn't conflict with the
David Webber writes:
|
| Forgive me if this has been suggested before but could not a double
|
| !!
|
| be used to indicate a line break. This would be consistent with
| the !whatever! usage with absence of any characters indicating a
| line break.
|
| It still leaves existing files as a problem
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 11:14:50AM +, John Chambers wrote:
David Webber writes:
|
| Forgive me if this has been suggested before but could not a double
|
| !!
|
| be used to indicate a line break. This would be consistent with
| the !whatever! usage with absence of any characters
Richard Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 11:14
So all we can do is, find all abc programs that aren't being maintained,
and document the common subset :(
I think it would be appropriate to have a section in the standard on
legacy applications. If it's documented that abc2win and
From: John Chambers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Webber writes:
|
| Forgive me if this has been suggested before but could not a
double
|
| !!
|
| be used to indicate a line break. This would be consistent
with
| the !whatever! usage with absence of any characters indicating a
| line
Richard Robinson writes:
| On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 11:14:50AM +, John Chambers wrote:
|
| Solutions that require a change in abc2win aren't solutions at all.
|
| So all we can do is, find all abc programs that aren't being maintained,
| and document the common subset :(
Unfortunately, this
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 03:30:04PM +, John Chambers wrote:
Richard Robinson writes:
| On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 11:14:50AM +, John Chambers wrote:
|
| Solutions that require a change in abc2win aren't solutions at all.
|
| So all we can do is, find all abc programs that aren't being
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 11:10:04AM -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
Richard Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 11:14
So all we can do is, find all abc programs that aren't being maintained,
and document the common subset :(
I think it would be appropriate to have a section in the
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 05:07:34PM +, John Chambers wrote:
Richard Robinson writes:
|
| We don't have it nearly as bad as the HTML and java crowds. Our few
| incompatibilities are trivial in comparison.
Yes, that's true. Perhaps !blink! is only a matter of time ...
| If I add
Hello,
for those interested, I have uploaded the A proposal for a new ABC 2.0.0
standard (rev. 14/7/2003) on my site. Have a look:
http://abcplus.sourceforge.net/#ABC%20Plus%20draft
It took me quite some time to get this unimpressive thing together, so
please:
* only constructive criticism
First congratulations to Guido on putting this together - it does seem to include most of the updated features. I have stayed out of most of the discussions on what to include/exclude from the standard, but would like to give a group of comments on this draft form (and I have counted to several
On Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 09:37:48AM +0200, Guido Gonzato wrote:
Hello,
for those interested, I have uploaded the A proposal for a new ABC 2.0.0
standard (rev. 14/7/2003) on my site. Have a look:
http://abcplus.sourceforge.net/#ABC%20Plus%20draft
It took me quite some time to get this
Thank you Guido, for your valiant attempt at updating the abc
standard.
Here are a few comments:
File organisation - perhaps this needs a paragraph to itself?
Section 2 says that tunes are separated by blank lines, but says
nothing about text between tunes (should be explicitly permitted,
Phil Taylor writes:
|
| Section 2.1.2, the paragraph on Global accidentals could at
| least mention the possibility of adding these to the key signature
| rather than dotting them through the tune as an option.
Since this is one of the things I've implemented, I was also thinking
of suggesting
Phil Taylor writes:
|
| Section 2.1.4 on Clefs does nothing to heal the biggest single
| schism between programs, i.e. what the correspondence between
| abc symbol and note pitch is for different clefs. Some programs
| keep it the same - e.g. in BarFly C always means middle C, regardless
| of
Richard Robinson writes:
| But, one little thought occurred to me, re the much-discussed and
| little-agreed ! staff-break. With no prejudice as to whether this ought
| to exist, etc etc (except that, the more I think about it, the more I'd
| like it, so, if it helps ...) it needn't conflict with
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 01:00:26AM +, John Chambers wrote:
Richard Robinson writes:
| But, one little thought occurred to me, re the much-discussed and
| little-agreed ! staff-break. With no prejudice as to whether this ought
| to exist, etc etc (except that, the more I think about it, the
23 matches
Mail list logo
