On 2010-11-05, John Lundsten wrote:
But as to formats that are, IMO, "missing"
What I think is that they should be added. This is actually the main reason I put up that companion document as an "informative" one, so that it could be added to at will. The base format described in the main standard document already allows quite a lot to be described without any documentation, but if new formats which fit the description come out, their "default" mappings could be described quite easily.
The troublesome part is where I/we happened to leave something out from the base description which would be needed. There the rules are still easy on you, I think, or at least we tried to make them so. We could have addenda to the specification without changing the headers, to accommodate whatever you need. That's the standardization viewpoint.
But I at least do not kid myself by thinking those mapping headers have any weight or adoption today. The reason to keep them stable isn't that they're some kind of well-adopted standard which would cause mayhem if they were changed. Rather I think they have to be stable to be adopted in the first place. And of course, in an open source crowd, I'm certainly not the authority with them; the people who actually adopt and implement them, are.
What do you think re :- Double MS, Schoeps call this DMS.
Describable within the framework already. So do add it into the companion document. After all it's freely editable by anybody. ;)
-- Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - [email protected], http://decoy.iki.fi/front +358-50-5756111, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2 _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list [email protected] https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
