Re: MusicXML 3.1 Community Group Report available for review

Thank you for your suggestion, Peter. I have updated the MusicXML 3.1 community report to include a full list of changes from MusicXML 3.0 to 3.1.

Could you please review this to see if this now looks adequate for the community report, or if there are further revisions that you believe we should make?

If anybody else has feedback on the community report, please let us know. Even knowing that people have reviewed it and think it looks good as-is is helpful.

Best regards,

Michael Good
VP of MusicXML Technologies
MakeMusic, Inc.

> On Nov 23, 2017, at 9:37 AM, L Peter Deutsch <lpd@major2nd.com> wrote:
> 
> [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
>