- From: Michael Good <musicxml@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 09:27:30 -0800
- To: public-xg-audio@w3.org
- Message-ID: <AANLkTi=+bzO-UVZ9GBK1UDYGo0BXmvtuAbNc2eSD1tM8@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Joe, You may well be right about this, but they are perceived issues even if not real issues. I think it's best to be able to go to site owners and say "we've fixed your problem" rather than saying "that's not really a problem." Sometimes just the aesthetics of space inefficiency are enough to make it a problem. The compressed file format offers many other advantages anyway. This includes keeping linked/included images together with scores in a single file, and offering a dedicated .mxl suffix rather than a generic .xml suffix. The tradeoff is that it's a binary file rather than a text file, albeit a very well-understood, standardized binary format (vanilla, Java-compatible zip files). Best regards, Michael Good Recordare LLC On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Joseph Berkovitz <joe@noteflight.com>wrote: > Michael, > > Amen to a great deal of your note here, but I do wonder about the extent to > which compression is a real issue. > > Doesn't server-side GZIP compression render bandwidth problems moot for > text-based formats? Also, uncompressed MusicXML files are typically not much > larger than high resolution PDFs in my experience. Finally, the plummeting > cost of disk space doesn't seem to me like it would really be an issue these > days. > > ...Joe >
Received on Tuesday, 14 December 2010 17:28:03 UTC