Re: [abcusers] chords writing in abc

[Bryancreer]

Phil Taylor said -

>1.  Anything but the most simple extension needs some experimentation
>to find out what works.  You've got to do it first, then try it out with
>a lot of music to see if it's a good idea.


I don't see why that precludes discussing it on the list before releasing it.
 At the very least, that would mean people were aware of what was being done.

>2.  If we had to wait for agreement nothing would ever get done.

So it gets done whether there is agreement or not.  Does this mean you
wouldn't object to me introducing a sharps/flats and no tonic version of the
K: command?

>Nobody's hostile to anyone here (present company excepted, of course).

Well, Jim Vint seems to come in for some fairly robust criticism and as for
me, at least you are responding to what I say rather than going straight into
"Bryan bashing mode" .  That's encouraging.

>middle = was proposed after the draft standard appeared.

So put up a new proposal.  You are on the standards committee, dammit.

>I never bothered proposing Gregorian chant as a general standard as it's
>such a specialised area.

Fair enough.  Nobody is going to be accused of an incomplete implementation
of abc if they don't include it in their software.  On the other hand, if it
was a published standard, people could take it up if they wanted and ensure
that their version was compatible with yours.

>>>Multivoice abc using V: started in abc2midi and (at least in its basics)
>>>is now supported by most programs.
>>
>>In at least two incompatible versions (see above).
>
>Not completely incompatible (see above).

That sounds a bit like "slightly pregnant" or "almost a virgin".  Jack Campin
posted an interesting version of Shingly Beach recently using BarFly
notation.  Muse, abcmus and my own abc2nwc couldn't cope with it.  abc2win
produced all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order.  I don't
imagine abc2ps could handle it.  Frank Nordberg recently posted separate
BarFly and abc2ps versions of a tune.

>The draft standard is just that.  It represents one person's proposals
>put up for discussion.  I've made my opinion on that section clear on
>several occasions, and will continue to do so.

It actually represents something that someone has already implemented and
then put up for discussion; a procedure that you endorse in your point 1
above.  Once somebody has put a lot of work into implementing something they
think is a good idea, they aren't going to throw it all away because somebody
then says they don't like it, as I'm sure you'll agree.

One day there will be a single agreed abc standard (maybe, but not yet).

Bryan Creer