On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 03:31:08AM +1000, Dave Robillard wrote: > If by <channel> you mean MIDI style channel number - dear god no. :) > Note numbers are debatable (but frequency is better in most cases), but > channel numbers definitely don't belong in OSC. Maybe an open-ended > string identifier (which could represent a channel, a patch, a certain > synth... whatever) > > There's no need to have confusing overloading with <voice> being zero or > non-zero - just make different commands. Have one note on command to > allocate the most appropriate voice (MIDI style), and one to start a > note on a specific voice. In Om I've made seperate commands for global > or voice-specific controls, and it works great. > > Ability to control individual voices specifically is one of the things I > love about OSC. Death to MIDI. :)
Agreed 100% - I was not proposing an OSC format, just I a hypothetical variaton of MIDI that would have allowed client side voice control. I see you consistently start all your OSC paths with /om, while SL doesn't do this. Any pros/cons ? It seems essential only when multicasting. -- FA
