- From: L Peter Deutsch <lpd@major2nd.com>
- Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2015 20:10:57 +0100
- To: public-music-notation-contrib@w3.org
> Build an initial MusicXML specification Much of my "pushback" was based on my perception of large past differences of opinion between myself and Michael Good as to what constitutes a "specification" (and what constitutes an acceptable level of conformance to one). Is it intended that this initial specification of MusicXML 3.1 meet the criteria in my earlier posting, repeated below? Or will something less be considered acceptable? * It must provide a mechanically executable, unambiguous test for syntactic conformance that consumers can and should implement. * It must provide a mechanically checkable, unambiguous test for semantic conformance that consumers can and should implement. This includes not only type and range specifications for all individual data items, but clear validity criteria for all relationships between items and structures. * It must define the *meaning* of every construct that passes the above two tests. If a construct does not have visual or semantic meaning, such as a line with only one end, it must not be allowed. * It must not be bent to cater to implementation bugs. However, non-conformances in leading implementations should be documented in an annex, to help embarrass implementors into fixing them. While I am not thrilled at the prospect of an effort to create a high-quality specification for a design whose subsequently repairable defects are likely to create significant additional work in that effort, I would be extremely disappointed if a decision were made to settle for something less. I believe specifying MusicXML 3.1 thoroughly will provide invaluable experience in identifying areas for improvement, complementing the investigation of use cases. L Peter Deutsch
Received on Monday, 9 November 2015 21:06:17 UTC