W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-audio@w3.org > December 2010

Re: Music Notation on the Web

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 18:43:41 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTinA+ji+nMkFWC090tWbjYs3WFp-R4G03QEcdrf3@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Good <musicxml@gmail.com>
Cc: public-xg-audio@w3.org
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Michael Good <musicxml@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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).

For what it's worth, this was the design also taken by the W3C Widgets
group, see Widget packaging spec, http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets/

I think they had some headaches figuring out how exactly to cite Zip
from a formal W3C spec, but http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets/#zip-archive
is the current text.

More than a few ebooks formats do the same I'm sure,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_e-book_formats ...

cheers,

Dan
Received on Tuesday, 14 December 2010 17:44:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:37:59 UTC