Phil Taylor says -
> Any system of democracy involves a franchise: there are always some people
> who are entitled to vote and some who are not. We don't allow children,
> criminals, lunatics or the Queen to elect our politicians
I'm sure "the vast majority of users" will be glad to know the high regard
you hold them in. (Bags I be Queen first.)
> Now if you don't like that Bryan, you know what you can do.
Well, if I do write some more software (I think that's what you meant) please
bear in mind that you will have as little influence on mine as I do on yours
and, since I WILL be taking notice of what the vast majority of users want, I
may have more influence than you'd like.
I am reluctant to respond to John Atchley's posting because he will only
accuse me of more whining but here goes.
It is precisely because all the people you mention have made such important
contributions to abc software development that I have tried to present my
case with reasoned arguments rather than going it alone as you recommend.
> And then there is Bryan, whose first and so far only contribution to the
> abc user community is a program that will tell us when our abc notation is
> "wrong."
Come on! Everybody has to start somewhere, and my ABCchecker doesn't tell
you when things are "wrong", it tells you when they don't conform to the
standard. If something you want doesn't appear in the standard, campaign to
get it put in. That was part of the point of the exercise.
> I don't think there is a developer on this list who wouldn't love to see a
> responsive and flexible, but concrete and comprehensive, abc standard.
Maybe, they just don't seem to be prepared to do anything to bring this
about. Chris Walshaw (who invented abc, remember?) has published a draft
standard and says "A new version of the standard is under discussion on the
abcusers mail list". I don't seem to have seen much constructive input.
> As Phil pointed out, there is a sort of informal democratic process at work
> in the development of the abc standard.
I don't think Phil is into informal processes. His style is more laying down
the law. His idea of democracy is "Lets all agree to do what I say."
> If you want to vote, then write some software,
I think every abc user should have an equal right to vote whether they have
written any software or not (actually, I have, remember?).
> or convince a developer that your desire is reasonable.
What the ^&�$*@# do you think I've been trying to do? I've been met with
intransigence, misrepresentation, "We know best!" and downright abuse all the
way.
> Bryan, if the K:^f syntax is so important to you, then begin using it.
Well, I've already been given a ticking off by one who identified themselves
with WE for trying to implement something that wasn't supported by abc2win.
Now you seem to be telling me that that is exactly what I should do. Laurie
Griffiths suggested that I use my Noteworthy to abc conversion programme to
produce abc files unreadable by any other software, but at least he knew he
was being sarcastic.
> write some software of your own that uses it.
I will, but as I have said, abc is useless as an exchange medium if we are
not all talking the same language.
> Add it to your abc source checker, having it print a warning that it is not
yet
> adopted in the standard.
I already have.
> Use it in the copious amounts of abc notation that you are transcribing and
> contributing to the user community (what was that URL, BTW?)
http://members.aol.com/LewesArmsFolk/Lewesfav.html. It appears on the abc
homepage under abc collections as "Favourite English dance tunes from the
Lewes sessions, Sussex". I'd like this to be accessible to other people's
software.
> If you are right, and there is sufficient demand for the syntax, other
developers will
> follow you and John Chambers and begin incorporating it into their software.
Well, Phil Taylor believes that "the vast majority of users" would use it and
this is (part of) his reason for opposing it becoming part of the standard.
> At that point, like the V: syntax, it will matter little whether
> it is in the standard; for better or worse it will have become a defacto
> part of the language.
But V: is not a defacto part of the language. It is used by a limited number
of packages and will continue to be so until a precise syntax definition is
availabe, preferably as part of the standard.
> If Phil objects that's his problem.
It certainly is.
> Instead of arguing and whining, just press on.
I would rather arrive at concensus of opinion. "Pressing on" produces a
discoordinated shambles.
> Of course, if you want to produce midi output from your abc you'll have to
invest as > much time and energy as he and the other developers on this list
by writing a
> midi player that handles the syntax. When you prove yourself willing to do
> that, the rest of us might take your recommendations a bit more seriously.
I have never expressed the slightest interest in producing midi output, so
you've rather lost me there. Is this another thing I have to do before being
allowed to have an opinion?
Laurie Griffiths says -
> You are starting to annoy me.
Good.
I'll be in touch.
Bryan
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
