Re: [abcusers] dynamics (again)

[Bryancreer]

Jack Campin said -

>Programs like abc2win only let you output ABC they can interpret.

abc2win has come under considerable critiscism on this list for its deviations from the standard.  After not inconsiderable effort on my part, abc2nwc now accepts abc2win tunes without much trouble.  This was essential given the large quantity of abc2nwc tunes there seem to be out there.  I have not managed the same with abc tunes produced using BarFly (avoiding calling it 'output') because some of its extensions are incompatible with other implementations; notably the V: command.  Surely the ideal to work towards is that the input/output from all software should be mutually comprehensible.

>if I need a feature in ABC to represent a piece of music in front of me I'll
>invent it and let the programmers catch up when they can.

Why should they if it isn't in the standard?  How can they be sure of getting it right without a formal definition?  What do they do if someone else has come up with a different solution to the same situation?  What do they do if your syntax conflicts with somebody else's solution to a completely different problem?  By cooperating at the definition/specification level, all that would be avoided and you would get what you want.

>It's fine for an application to report that it can't figure such stuff out,
>or to say that it doesn't meet some agreed standard, but that doesn't
>mean it shouldn't be there.

But some of the information you wished to convey is lost to the recipient.  Hardly satisfactory.

Bryan Creer