- From: Andreas Wenger <andi.xenoage@googlemail.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 13:55:11 +0100
- To: public-music-notation-contrib@w3.org
Hi, > Just a thought - I do wonder if a specific implementation would > necessarily be a good idea (since we might get bogged down in > implementation rather than discussing the specification) and it might > be better to have pseudo-code algorithms to go with examples for each > part of the specification I agree with Joshan. I do not really know how a working MusicXML engraver would help me to make my own engraver better. Of course I could test specific cases, but it does not provide a systematic way to evaluate the quality of my own renderer. What was really helping me so far for the Zong! open source music notation project, is the Unofficial MusicXML Test Suite from the Lilypond project, http://www.lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/input/regression/musicxml/collated-files.html Unfortunately, there are some errors in it, Lilypond does not support some features (so some result images are unusable) and it wasn't extended for a long time. But a test suite in this style (MusicXML input and expected result image) seems to be perfect for me to measure quality. What tests/benchmarks do the other MusicXML engravers use? What I'd like to see is something like "My app reaches 164/200 points in the official MusicXML rendering benchmark. 30 points are not implemented yet, 26 others currently fail.". And a list with the detail images. (And the best app will be the unofficial reference app...) Bye, Andi
Received on Tuesday, 1 December 2015 13:56:19 UTC