- From: Glenn Linderman <v+smufl@g.nevcal.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 12:48:50 -0700
- To: public-music-notation-contrib@w3.org
On 4/3/2017 6:52 AM, Joe Berkovitz wrote:
> I would add one more point here: measures are tangible objects in the
> user interfaces of most CWMN notation editors and viewers. So there is
> tangible value in transferring one application's notion of "measure" to
> another application. Not every barline corresponds to a measure boundary.
Sure. A barline can be a measure boundary, or other types of boundary
(repeat, movement, final, and others). So annotate it with its semantics.
On 4/3/2017 7:10 AM, Jan Rosseel wrote:
>> I would add one more point here: measures are tangible objects in
the user interfaces of most CWMN notation editors and viewers.
> Amen to that. And why is that so? Because the measure (number) is a
key element in how musicians work and organize themselves. "We start at
measure ..." is probably the most heard sentence in rehearsals. It
synchronizes musicians, and is also the key element in synchronised
music sheet viewers.
>
> It would be really awkward to ignore this real-life concept in MNX.
Sure, the semantic annotations of a barline could even include measure
numbers, for programs that can't count :) It would be more likely that
measure numbers would have an implicit value of "one more than the last
barline with a measure annotation", and the first such measure bar would
have an implicit value of "one". But that should be able to be
overridden for cases of annotating fragments of longer works.
The user interface need not always reflect the underlying data structures.
On 4/3/2017 7:38 AM, Christof Schardt wrote:
> And last not least don't forget to consider practical aspects:
> inspecting MusicXML-files in xml-editors with hierarchical
> code colding would be a pain, if this structuring element
> would be flattend out.
>
> The measure-provided correspondence of tree-nodes in an editor
> and sections in a score is an invaluable help.
>
> I regard measures as a main structuring element of 99.5% of the
> files we have to handle.
>
> Christof
And I agree that most music contains measures, and 100% of the music I
deal with contains measures, but it does seem there is music without
measures. So how do you deal with that music?
No code "colding" ("folding", I assume you mean) would help with that.
I find dealing with XML's wordiness is sufficient reason to avoid using
it for internal data structures, so my only expected use of viewing XML
would be for testing the code that does the import/export of MNX... not
something I'm likely to do regularly. Otherwise, I'd simply import the
MNX, and view the notation in my notation editor.
Received on Monday, 3 April 2017 19:49:35 UTC