Re: MusicXML 3.1 Community Group Report available for review

[mailing list moderator bouncing this to public-music-notation-contrib which the sender isn’t authorized to post to. Consider telling them to join the CG do to so, or write from the known address as a CG participant.]

> Please let us know any suggestions for improving this report. We would like to publish this report in two weeks.

Simply linking to a list of GitHub issues is not an adequate way to document changes from 3.0 to 3.1 -- it isn't reasonable to make authors of producer and consumer software extract the information they need from that list.  At a minimum, the report should include:

* A list of MusicXML 3.0 constructs that have been removed from 3.1, if any, with a description of what replaces them.

* A list of 3.0 constructs that have been deprecated, if any, with a description of what replaces them.

* A list of added, modified, or removed constraints on the usage of existing constructs, if any.

* A list of new or changed constructs, sorted by what file(s) in the schema they affect.  It isn't necessary to duplicate the description of the change (which presumably is included in the updated schema) in the report, but a list of what has been added or changed is necessary.  This includes attributes added to existing elements, and additional allowed attribute values.

"Constructs" includes all entities, elements, and attributes in the schema

In my opinion, this is basic professional practice for any revision of a language definition, even MusicXML which doesn't have a complete or precise one.

      L Peter Deutsch