Some history: Originally there was an ABC users list and a separate ABC developers list. it turned out that most of the things discussed on the developers' list were of interest to users (because a lot of it was about what programs should or should not do) and developers wanted to know what users thought (that might surprise some people) in addition several users didn't want to be left out, so less and less traffic went on the developers-only list and it fell into disuse. That's why there is discussion here about source-forge, syntax, parsing, standards, extensions and all the rest.
It is not hard at all to agree on a simple case like you have illustrated. (I just ran it through Muse to check - as expected, no problem - and I imagine the same would apply to the abc2xxx extended family, barfly and many others). the problems come when you want to write tunes that are *not* simple - for instance transcribing Scarlatti which can be highly contrapuntal, folk tunes with words that don't fit the notes too well, harmonies with many parts, trombone parts which are normally written in a funny clef and have lots of very low notes, clockenspiel parts which are played 2 octaves up, fiddle parts that contain notes in between the semitones, Balkan pieces with key signatures like "two-flats and a sharp", Pieces with complex rhythms like M:2+2+3+3+2/8 and so on. Many programs have been extended to handle particular cases like these and it would be nice to standardise these extensions. Many other things have not been implemented at all and people would like them included too. Laurie ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 7:30 PM Subject: [abcusers] Re: abcusers-digest V1 #584 First why does digest come from UnknownSender@UnknownDomain? What kind of list is this any way. A couple of weeks ago, when I signed up, I got a couple of tunes, that was cool. Now it's all about a bunch of arguing about arguing, about a code that apparently changes every time someone writes a program to run it. If these guys writing the programs are to stupid to stick with the original then just delete the program, and the ignorate files they generated. Then tell people that it doesn't work. Besides How hard can it be to agree on a simple code like X: 1 T:Jump At the Sun M:6/8 L:1/8 C:John Kirkpatrick 1972 R:jig K:Em |:EGB ^A2B|EGB ^A2B|eBB eBB|BAG F3 |EGB ^A2B|EGB ^A2B|eBB cBA|GAF E3:| |:eBB gfe|fBB agf|gfe gfe|f^dB c2B |eBB gfe|fBB agf|eBB cBA|GAF E3:| It's not like most all are written about like this, any way. If it doesn't follow the out line on the ABC homepage, junk it. I for one figured out one thing, If it doesn't run on "yaps," or abcmidi, it's gone. I'm not about to run a bunch of junk that doesn't run halfway right. Or load a dozen programs to see if one works on a stupid tune that I can't play any way. If the ABC2WIN piece of junk wasn't for convenience, it would have been gone long ago. The only good thing about it, is the fact that it quickly plays the simple tunes on the PC speaker. As long it has no cords, or lyrics. It crunches the notes together in a little line when you "draw" the tune. You ought to see what happens if it has lyrics. Can you imagine someone didn't even have enough pride that they released this thing to the public. Then has the nerve to ask you to send them money. Come on what did it take, all afternoon to develop this. In a message dated 11/2/2001 8:53:52 AM Central Standard Time, UnknownSender@UnknownDomain writes: > Instead of arguing on loose points, abcusers could debate on > specific points, and "vote" for the resolution of them. Actually, this is exactly what a number of reprobates have been asking for ages on this list, of course implying that the results of the ballot had to be incorporated in the standard... we do have experienced a couple of problems so far: > You can't change the past. There are tens of thousands of ABC files > already out there on the web and a lot of them conform to no standard > that has ever existed. They're not going to disappear, most are not > going to be fixed on their home sites, many will go on echoing down > the years in their original form on mirror sites even if they do get > fixed by their creator, and they're not going to lose their musical > value. So new standards won't help avoid the need for editing. So you think writing a standard would prevent this? There's to many jokers out their that think they have to change everything around, thinking they'll make a "name" for them selves. When all they'll be remembered for is totally screwing up something that worked. To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
