Re: Draft MNX Specification

Hi Joe,
Finally starting to read through this. I noticed something with Examples 7
and 8. There is reference in the text to a <global> element, but the code
examples list a <system> element. I think they mean the same thing, and
that only one of those should be used. (I think this should be <global>,
given the definition in 5.2.3.1). This still appears in the draft dated 10
January (current web version)

For example, should Example 8 be:
<system>
  <measure>
...

or
<global>
  <measure>
...

J. Sawruk

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 1:34 PM, Joe Berkovitz <joe@noteflight.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> The co-chairs are pleased to announce the availability of the first draft
> of the MNX specification. Thank you everyone for your forbearance, as it
> took quite a while to write. It can be viewed online at this new URL:
>
>    https://w3c.github.io/mnx/specification/
>
> We believe this draft is an important milestone for the group, and hope it
> can serve to move our work to a new level.  Let me try to summarize what's
> been done, what has not, and what we can do next.
>
> Accomplishments:
>
> - We now have a draft document that tries to supply a definitive
> specification for MNX, and can serve as the basis for a more formal and
> careful discussion. This replaces the former loose narrative describing
> what MNX is like (the now-obsolete "MNX Overview").
>
> - Most of the main structural elements and core notation features for
> CWMNX are present.
> - Many of the ideas in the former Overview have been re-thought and
> improved or simplified, often in response to early feedback.
> - Existing examples have been recoded to track the new specification.
> - GMNX has been defined to a point where experimental implementations are
> viable (see separate email follow-up).
>
> Major Gaps:
>
> - Many CWMN elements that exist in MusicXML have not been addressed yet.
> While most should fit into one or another of the categories that exist in
> the draft spec, some will not.
> - Many previously existing issues raised by the CG remain to be resolved.
> - The set of examples is very small.
> - We don't yet have a roadmap for a CWMNX reference implementation.
> - There is not yet a normative model for the visual rendering of MNX, nor
> for its musical performance.
>
> So what's next?
>
> As a next step our plan is to collectively take up the work of improving
> this draft, and that means a lot of activity on our issues list at
> https://github.com/w3c/mnx/issues. We have no expectation that this will
> be a fast process, as there's a lot to mull over and discuss.
>
> In order to keep the discussion focused, let's use the issues to propose
> and respond to ideas. Regular mailing list traffic should be reserved for
> matters of process, or which rise above the content of the specification.
> Here is a quick reminder on some practices that can help us keep our
> exchanges clear and focused:
>
> 1. Please break problems apart and file an individual issue for each
> separate concern. It's hard for the group to work with issues that roll up
> many problems under one heading.
> 2. Please explain exactly how your issue negatively affects a user of the
> current specification, in some concrete use case.
> 3. Wherever possible, please propose a concrete improvement to the
> specification. Explain how this change will positively affect the same use
> case.
>
> The set of examples also needs much work, and we hope that the CG
> membership will supply a lot of good material. The chairs are working on
> defining how we can best absorb and organize examples in the repository.
>
> Finally, some means of moving ahead on trial implementations would be a
> great benefit. We'll save that for a later thread.
>
> That's all for now. I look forward to a vigorous and constructive
> discussion on this list!
>
> Best regards,
>
> .            .       .    .  . ...Joe
>
>