Hi,
> Why not start it then? ?Even if you're not a coder, you can
> start drafting the requirements and a human level
> specification.
well, to be honest, I'm not a coder, and I'm not familiar
enough with sampling to create specs. Sounds as a wiki would
be helpful.
> Forget XML, packing and whatknot and just
> describe, hierarchically or otherwise, what the file should
> contain.
XML is hip, nothing else :) .
Anyway, maybe it's wrong for a sampling format, but otherwise
the advantage is that it is easily human readable as well as
machine creatable.
Just some hours before I read that there are people who'd like
to create soundfonts automatically on remote machines; so the
new format should be able to be created via shell scripts as
well as defined easily be blind users or GUI frontends. So I
guessed that XML isn't the least choice.
> Even if you are a coder, don't always jump for XML. ?While
> it's certainly human readable, it's often about as easy to
> read as a postscript file (also human readable).
This depends on the format. XML is a syntax or markup; you're
right, there are XML files which are not very human readable.
But we can do it better :) .
> Anyway, my suggestion is: get the ball rolling. ?Once it's
> specced, all that's needed is a library for processing the
> file and it would be a fairly simple job to make things
> like fluid work with the new format.
I'm not that optimistic, but maybe I'm wrong.
Best regards
ce
