On Sat, Feb 06, 2010 at 07:12:59PM +0100, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote: > However, there is also a practical problem: How do you check the > quality of your export? There are so many things in the MusicXML > "specification" that are left unclear, and the typical advice on > the MusicXML mailing list is "Just check what Finale does"...
That's rubbish. Remind anybody of microsoft's "office docuement standard" ? MusicXML isn't a standard at all. If you have to say "umm, dunno, look at what this other piece of software does", it's not a standard. Period. (unless you buy into microsoft's "whatever internet explorer does is the standard" definition of a standard, which totally warps the original intention of the term) > So, if you want to do serious work on MusicXML, you'll have to > buy a copy of finale for several hundred $$$ (well, Michael Good > suggested to buy one of the stripped-down version for "only" > 100$ ...... However, these versions don't support MusicXML 2.0, > so they don t really help). Wow! That's pretty sleazy. Is their company really *that* bad that they need to ask open-source developers to buy several-hundred-dollar software just to work on interaction between the two? I see why nobody wants to work on musicxml export. I mean, if even finale's company isn't interested in "playing nice", then why on earth should other programmers jump through hoops to work on musicxml?!? Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
