On Wed 29 Nov 2000 at 04:06PM +0000, Phil Taylor wrote:
> James Allwright wrote:
> >But the tune isn't contained in a V: field. This is a big jump which
> >means you diverge from the 1.6 standard. My original suggestion was
> >intended to follow the spirit of the 1.6 fields and aimed at people
> >who want to do likewise. I can see that you are a "lost cause" in
> >this respect, which is why I said it wouldn't be BarFly-compatible.
> >
>
> I don't see this as a serious problem. BarFly can do it either way,
> and I do warn users that if they upload tunes with the music on the
> same line as the V: that users of other programs will have difficulty
> with them. Even then, it's a fairly minor bit of editing that needs
> to be done to make the tune work.
BarFly is only compatible with other programs up to a point. Because
your parser starts looking for notes after V:n, it will get confused
when it gets
V:1 subfield=X
from someone else's abc. You had to introduce V: in the header to get
round the problem (though you may argue that you prefer it that way).
If you make your parser look for subfields instead of notes, then we
get back to everyone having broadly compatible V: fields with the general
format:
V:n subfield1=X subfield2=Y ..
where a program can ignore a subfield if it doesn't understand it.
I will leave the subject of clef syntax for another day.
James Allwright
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
