At 08:46 PM 03-01-01 -0500, Laura Conrad wrote:
>>>>>> "Richard" == Richard Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Richard> ie, if xml gives access to worthwhile stuff, how about an
abc2xml
> Richard> converter ?
>
>
>But as far as *I* know, it doesn't. Does anyone know differently?
XML gives quite a few advantages over ABC, but also some disadvantages. As
John Henckel has already pointed out:
> #2 -- it has a very clean, logical, and extensible syntax.
The extensible bit is important. We had this conversation a little while
ago in relation to namespaces. XML is far more extensible than ABC, and
even better, is extensible in a way that doesn't affect backwards
compatability. Take John Henckel's example of a note in XML:
<note>
<pitch>
<step>B</step>
<alter>-1</alter>
<octave>4</octave>
</pitch>
<duration>1</duration>
<type>eighth</type>
<stem>up</stem>
<beam number="1">end</beam>
</note>
Let's say I wanted to add a colour to this note for use by my printing
program ("foo" ). I could write:
<note>
<pitch>
<step>B</step>
<alter>-1</alter>
<octave>4</octave>
</pitch>
<duration>1</duration>
<type>eighth</type>
<stem>up</stem>
<beam number="1">end</beam>
<foo:colour>red</foo:colour>
</note>
Any program that understands the "foo" namespace can use the colour value,
any program that doesn't understand the "foo" namespace can just ignore it
because the input syntax is very regular and well defined - it is easy to
skip over a tag you don't understand.
The downside to all of this, as has been noted, is that the input format is
much wordier, not the sort of thing you're likely to jot down on the back
of an envelope. ABC and MusicXML are addressing different needs - ABC is
the "cheap and cheerful" music language, MusicXML is at the "all singing
all dancing" end of the spectrum.
Bob
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
