Co-chair meeting minutes: February 28, 2025 [via Music Notation Community Group]

MNX



Adrian provided some rapid-fire updates on a number of issues recently raised by members of the community group:




The specification has been updated to state that it uses the language codes defined in RFC 5646, the successor to the older ISO 639 standard (issue #363)



For tempo markings, location was defined as a measure rhythmic position, but given the tempo is already in a measure, this is redundant, so only a rhythmic position is required (issue #373)



Some of the JSON keys were using bar and some were using measure; everything is now consistently called measure throughout (issue #375)



Robert Patterson suggested (in discussion #385) that the docs should show the parent relationship for each object, which has now been implemented



The definition of staff in sequence was incorrect, and this has been corrected (issue #387)



Adrian has also improved the spacing around object descriptions in the documentation.




The bulk of the meeting concerned issue #395, the encoding of ties.



Ties are encoded on the starting note: for a tie between notes, target specifies the ID of the note where the tie ends; for a hanging tie, we use the key location, which specifies the rhythmic position at which the tie ends. We also provide for a means of specifying an indeterminate starting and ending position for a hanging tie in or out of a note.



Before we moved to JSON, for hanging ties we used a microsyntax to describe the rhythmic position at which the tie ended, or special values for inbound and outbound with no positions specified. However, we have eliminated microsyntaxes from MNX, so this no longer fits with the design of the format.



Issue #396 contains Adrian's proposals for how to improve the encoding of ties. After some discussion, we arrived at the consensus that we should simplify ties such that note.tie becomes note.ties, which is a list of tie objects (containing a target specifying either a note ID or that it is a laissez vibrer tie). We propose that we will not encode so-called incoming ties: we believe these are either presentational in nature (as in engravings where ties are shown in separate halves, but which are semantically still single ties) or are concerned with repeat jumps (in which case they are semantically handled by being specified in targets).



Adrian will update issue #396 with an updated proposal, and we welcome further input from the community.



Next meeting



The next co-chairs' meeting is scheduled for Thursday 13 March 2025.



----------

This post sent on Music Notation Community Group



'Co-chair meeting minutes: February 28, 2025'

https://www.w3.org/community/music-notation/2025/02/28/co-chair-meeting-minutes-february-28-2025/



Learn more about the Music Notation Community Group: 

https://www.w3.org/community/music-notation

Received on Friday, 28 February 2025 23:55:06 UTC