[abcusers] Subject: ABC 2.0 - reviving E:

I am just about catching up with this review process and think I should add my tenpennorth as an advocate of abc2mtex. The ABC 2.0 draft was based on ABC 1.7.6, but the last version of ABC2mtex produced was 1.6.1 which is pretty well backwards compatible with all previous versions. 1.7.6 did

[abcusers] ABC 2.0 Compatibility with ABC2MTEX

I am concerned about the lack of backwards compatibility of the proposed standard with abc2mtex. Since this was the original program for ABC, I think these issues deserve some consideration. 1. I have already mentioned the E: field in a previous e-mail. This needs reinstating 2.

[abcusers] Revising the ABC standard.

How are we going to reach decisions on a new standard? How come the proposal by Guido was suddenly expanded? Shall I now post my version on a website and call it revision IV? Are we going to vote? If so who votes?. The density of mail on the list is no guide to the opinion of list members.

Re: [abcusers] ABC 2.0 avoiding line breaks

John Chambers [EMAIL PROTECTED] said on 24 Aug 2003 The real problem we're facing is: A lot of people really want the final backslash to mean continue with the next line of the same type. But this discription is sufficiently ambiguous that we end up with different implementers

[abcusers] suggested modifications to the ABC standard

After much consideration and a little discussion, I have devised some modifications to the ABC standard, which I think could make the structure considerably more elegant without doing to much damage to existing applications. As they are rather complex I have described them on a web page:

Re: [abcusers] suggested modifications to the ABC standard

categories to produce application-specific groups. Any thoughts. Barry Say To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Clarification wanted on abc draft standard 2.0 (fwd)

in the melody line, but I have seen both. It seems more flexible to allow this rather than forbid. I think the question is why should it be forbidden? Barry Say To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Clarification wanted on abc draft standard 2.0 (fwd)

not introduce gratuitous percussion notation. Barry Say To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

[abcusers] Multivoice in ABC 2.0

of square brackets around voice field specifiers at the start of lines in the tune body. I cannot see the necessity for this construct. Barry Say To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Multivoice in ABC 2.0

have the label defined in the tuneheader or none. I do not like the unnecessary proliferation of inline fields of ABC2.0. I fear it will lead to more syntax errors. Barry Say To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Multivoice in ABC 2.0

and meter changes than having to match inline fields in all voices. Barry Say To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Multivoice in ABC 2.0

On 17 Oct 2003, Phil Taylor wrote: Barry Say wrote: You need to place a metre change in all of the voices (if that's what you want) since you can have voices in different metres. (It's not common, but it does happen, and not only in avant-garde music - Bach did it occasionally.) I