Re: Splitting MNX-Common and MNX-Generic

I agree with you Adrian, I don’t see any reason to keep them together after you have highlighted your points to take this route, which I agree upon.

All the best,

Fabrizio Ferrari
Virtual Sheet Music, Inc.
https://www.virtualsheetmusic.com


> On Mar 11, 2019, at 1:59 AM, Adrian Holovaty <adrian@holovaty.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> In defining the MNX format, we've envisioned having a single format that contains at least two "types" of music notation data — MNX-Generic and MNX-Common. I've come to believe this isn't the right move.
> 
> (For background, see the current spec at https://w3c.github.io/mnx/specification/ <https://w3c.github.io/mnx/specification/>)
> 
> I believe MNX-Generic and MNX-Common are sufficiently different that they should just be two separate formats, rather than us trying to shoehorn them into a single format. Three reasons:
> 
> 1. It's confusing for end users. Which one should users choose when importing/exporting? How would the user understand the differences in the level of semantics between the two similarly named formats? In my own experience, it's already confusing enough explaining the difference between a PDF and MusicXML, and those have different names!
> 
> 2. It's confusing for developers. The type of development work required to parse something that is essentially an SVG wrapper versus a semantic document model is completely different. I would estimate 90% of developers would only want/need to parse one or the other — which strongly suggests they should be separate formats.
> 
> 3. There's no obvious benefit in combining them, apart from some negligible things like having a common metadata format.
> 
> With this in mind, I'm proposing we formally split this into two formats, with distinct names and distinct specs. (To be clear, I think there's clear value in both formats existing.)
> 
> I brought this up with the other co-chairs in our latest meeting — you may have already seen the meeting minutes — and we're in broad agreement. Here are the meeting minutes with more details: https://www.w3.org/community/music-notation/2019/03/05/co-chair-meeting-minutes-march-5-2019/ <https://www.w3.org/community/music-notation/2019/03/05/co-chair-meeting-minutes-march-5-2019/>
> 
> Can anybody articulate a reason why we shouldn't make this change? I'd like to make sure we aren't overlooking a benefit that a single format would give us. If not, I can begin the work of splitting the spec in two. Please make any comments on the relevant GitHub issue (https://github.com/w3c/mnx/issues/98 <https://github.com/w3c/mnx/issues/98>), so that we keep all the feedback in one place.
> 
> Cheers,
> Adrian