Completing MusicXML 3.1

Hello all,

As we posted on the blog last week, we are working to release MusicXML 3.1 by the end of March. With the progress we have made to date and the number of issues still outstanding, this seems like a reasonable goal.

However, there is a difference between the issues resolved to date and most of the issues still ahead of us. The issues resolved to date have generally been non-controversial, with straightforward design or implementation choices. Most of them have received little feedback either on GitHub or on the mailing list, and that has been no problem so far. 

Most of the issues that remain for V3.1 are somewhat more complex. They involve more interesting design or implementation issues with more than one possible solution. It would be very helpful if we could get more participation in these discussions.

Earlier on we had the mailing list set up to notify people of everything that was done on GitHub. That caused a lot of extra email messages that were overwhelming to many people. Now this list is only notified once an issue has been completed, not while it is in progress. In order to follow what is going on in MusicXML 3.1 design and implementation, please be sure to "watch" the MusicXML repository at:

https://github.com/w3c/musicxml <https://github.com/w3c/musicxml>

Click the Watch button near the top of the screen to receive email notifications of what is happening with MusicXML 3.1 issues. You will need to be signed up with GitHub in order to watch the repository.

Here are some of the open issues where we could use the community's input:

- How do we want to support grace cue notes?

- How do we expand the metronome element to better handle metric modulations and tied notes with metronome marks?

- How do we add support for SMuFL characters that have the same appearance but different semantics? MusicXML 3.0 combines different uses of a symbol into the same element. Should we continue with that for MusicXML 3.1 and address the larger issue in MNX? Or should we start to add the different semantics now?

- How do we proceed with adding Uniform Type Identifiers for MusicXML files on macOS and iOS systems?

None of these issues is really complex. Anything that is really complex is something we are deferring for MNX. But they are not as straightforward as clarifying documentation ambiguities or adding new SMuFL symbols. It will really help make MusicXML 3.1 successful if we can have more people looking at these design and implementation questions. Even knowing that the current proposal looks fine as-is is good to know.

Thank you very much for your help! If there is something we as co-chairs can do to make things work better for MusicXML 3.1 participation, please let us know.

Best regards,

Michael Good
VP of MusicXML Technologies
MakeMusic, Inc.