Hello Guido, Guido Gonzato wrote: > Let me tell you the dark side of my ABC point of view: ABC is _very_ nice, > but is _way_ too limited. It was designed with too little goals in mind. As > a real-world musician, I want to tweak current ABC so that it can do my > choral scores reasonably well. As a computer guy, I already have a new > syntax ready that just waits to be put down on paper... > > I let you guess the reasons why I didn't put it down on paper. But if you're > interested, wave your hand at me.
I also see the sometimes hurting limits of the abc standard as it is. the problem is that there is a real big pile of content that uses the actuall standard. I looked into my files, and found that the abc files I transcribed are a pile of about 3 MB (plain ASCII). Assuming that other peoples who are listed as large collections at the abc homepage also have big collections besides what is in the net right now we are talking of at least 60 MB of content (another approximation is to multiply the 14000 titles of the www abc index with an single tune size of about 20KB makes 280.000 KB ). So if an entirely new syntax appears how will this syntax interprete this pile ? what are your solutions? will you write an all plattform automatic conversion tool and is it sure that no part of thecontent gets lost in this process? I am honestly interested and my questions are not cynical. But there are serious problems that would be created by a new standard. Simon Wascher - Vienna, Austria PS: this big pile of content is why I belive that bachkwards compatability in files overrules backwards comatability in programs. http://members.chello.at/simon.wascher/ To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
