>|>> We need something which can read PMX, M-Tx or ABC; convert it to >|>> a central structure; from that central structure write PMX, M-Tx, >|>> ABC, MusiXTeX, Lilypond, MIDI, etc. >|> >|> Do we? Yes, there are several "text-based" formats for describing >|> music (MusiXTeX, PMX, M-Tx, ABC, PMW, LY, ... ). But why would >|> anyone need to *inter-convert* these unless they were abandoning a >|> format and needed to convert "legacy" files to another format? >|> >|It seems obvious to me that the input->native->output model of >|development is more productive than the input->output model. You add >|the number of supported inputs to the number of supported outputs to get >|the amount of work, but you multiply them to get the pay-off.
the *potential* pay-off; but the actual pay-off would depend on how many interconversions are actually used. >|It also seems obvious to me that relying on tools written in Fortran >|and Pascal by one-man programmer teams is not ideal in the longer term. No question. >|But let me demonstrate that even if I have mastered the perfect input >|language, the Panmus model would still help me. >| >|In this whole tex-music game, we are all wearing several hats. >| >|- composers/arrangers/transcribers: we've got some scrawled music >| in front of us, maybe in our heads, maybe at a piano, we just >| want to get it into computer-readable form as fast as possible. >| >|- editors/typesetters: we've got a preliminary score into TeX, it >| looks less than perfect, we start tweaking it this way and that >| by going back to the source code, going through the whole cycle >| (thanks for automating this part so nicely) until it is immaculate. >| >|- programmers/developers: we continue sharpening our tools and adding >| features. >| >|The way it is now, I type in originally in musician mode, using only a >|very basic subset of PMX which I know by heart. (This "I" may well be a >|singer who can't even sight-read, basic PMX is that easy.) >| >|When I get to the adjustment stage, I switch to editor mode, but since I >|am not a full-time typesetter, I have to open the PMX Quick Reference >|card to remind myself of whether left offset is `l` or `e`, etc. >| >|All the time the developer in me is saying that a GUI which displays the >|score and lets me do adjustments via the mouse would be very nice at >|this point, instead of guessing X so many notehead widths. If I had the >|luxury of Master's students needing projects (hint-hint), I would be in >|heaven. >| >|Such a GUI would be easier to write if each note is already an object in >|a Lua table, when the GUI author would not need to know what the source >|representation was. That Lua table should be exportable not only to MIDI >|or TeX, but also back to the original source language. I am guaranteed >|to get nice, clean, correct PMX. If I used M-Tx, the exporter would >|beautifully align things vertically and insert all the optional bar >|lines. >| >|So even if I continue in my preference to keep music source as M-Tx, the >|availability of Panmus would improve my productivity, the legibility of >|my music text and the quality of my printed scores. I agree that you (and Dirk) have made a case for more inter-convertibility. But surely we've already missed the boat on what should be the "native" format. Every commercial and free music notation or scanning program I've looked at (except of course ours) makes an attempt to import and export MusicXML, and some of these actually work :+) So my more modest counter-proposal (apologies to Jonathan Swift) is for inter-conversion between PMX/M-Tx and MusicXML. This would at the very least provide an escape path for users if (when?) PMX or M-Tx themselves become unmaintainable. Bob ------------------------------- TeX-music@tug.org mailing list If you want to unsubscribe or look at the archives, go to http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/tex-music
