Last Tuesday 13 July 2004 22:44, ricktaylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx was like:
> I think you're probably right in calling it an "anachronism" and leaving
> it at that. I think it's time to move on to XML and SMIL {with appropriate
> extensions for sequencing languages like csound, ...midi, etc. } and to
> present stuff over the web or with large 4 color glossy inkjet prints.
Agreed. I believe both rosegarden and muse already use xml.
> > If you deal with any amount of electronic instruments, then your scoring
> > language will require considerable extension. If it contains computerised
> > elements, then we may as well use existing computer conventions to
> > describe those elements. I think the reality of that is burning it all to
> > CD and distributing that with the score if it's that important to the
> > piece. Then you get to the point where it works out cheaper just to put
> > the score on the CD as well and have done with it! Usually I find there's
> > enough room for several demo versions, and there you have it, rehearsal
> > copies for all into the bargain.
>
> I'm for putting it on cd... Are we talking "language" or "file format"
> here?
Um, I'm not sure to be honest. I mean the dots on the paper really.
> {Seems to me that any sufficently enabled file format should be readable
> in just about any language. :}}
>
> :} One file format to bind them all...
While (other) people are still using IE6, our options will be limited. Some
form of xml would seem the logical way to go, with a standard syntax based on
what we already have. It would be nice to be able to realise scores on web
browsers without having to resort to using images.
cheers
tim hall
