RE: MNX design goal: reduction of "book-keeping and post-processing"

Thanks, Christof. In general, that is as much as I assumed. But since I am
an amateur coder at best, I am struggling to really translate this into a
more tangible understanding of the underlying problems. Is there a simple
example that would show how MusicXML is problematic in that way and how
"more strict definitions" could improve the current state?

Also (@Joe), from the wording of the proposal it is not clear for me if the
proposed solution means adding more sophisticated definitions, or to instead
simplifying the current ones to decrease ambiguity.

Best,

Alex


-----Original Message-----
From: Christof Schardt [mailto:christof@schardt.info] 
Sent: Sonntag, 26. März 2017 17:47
To: public-music-notation-contrib@w3.org
Subject: Re: MNX design goal: reduction of "book-keeping and
post-processing"

> The proposal mentions as a design goal eliminating "the need for 
> complex book-keeping and post-processing when parsing measures of 
> music". Would it be possible that you succinctly describe some of the 
> standard scenarios with which in mind this goal has been set?

As an implementer of a musicxml-importer you have employ a lot of extra
structs to collect information while parsing and to evaluate these things
afterwards with respect to completeness, order, sanity and so on. This is
the result of the lack of more strict definitions.

Christof

Received on Sunday, 26 March 2017 16:23:18 UTC