>I don't know if whatI'm about to suggest has been suggested before,/.../ > it's fairly clear to me that the real key to >writing any new specification is adding some identifier that says that the tune >conforms to the new specification. For example, maybe something like: > >%%ABC3.0 > >...anywhere in a tune's header will indicate that the tune's encoding >conforms *strictly* to the ABC version 3.0 (just an example version...) >specification
yes, it has already been requested before. As an ABC user, I totally agree with the idea, and I would include such a comment in all my tunes (that conform to it) if it enters in the standard. But the general answer about such an identifier is that "no one would bother adding it", "you can implement it but only 5 % users would use it" etc. I don't see were is the problem. If some pple don't mind their tune won't be well played / displayed in most advanced application, and if they don't wish to add the level of abc used 1.6, 1.7 or 2.0, it'd be only their own fault. >If it's present, though, you can parse it strictly to the >3.0 specification -- no deviations allowed. it will allow to give responsibilities to pple who wish it this way, so I find it positive and more logical. ___________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français ! Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
