On Sun, 2 Sep 2001, [iso-8859-1] Forgeot Eric wrote:
> >I remember fantasising, a couple of years ago, about a usenet-style
> >network of intercommunicating, self-updating abc tune-servers.
>
> To avoid the necessity of having a "grand guru" or an Abc office
> center authorizing personnal identification number, I propose we
> could think of a logical code deriving from our country, area, and
> /or town etc. For the countries we could use a number, like those
> used in Isbn book code, but it's not really speaking, so we could
> use the internet code or the classification used in genealogy.
>
> for the country we have :
> http://www.geneanet.com/countrycode.php3?lang=fr (links to
> regional code for some countries)
>
> and for regions in France :
> http://www.geneanet.com/genealogie/fr/countrycode/country/FRA
>
> In canada and Usa :
> http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Meadows/3699/gen_form.html
>
> So I come from France, Champagne (Aube). My code could begin like
> that :
>
> FRA.CHA.10
>
> I may also add the first letters of my town, or the postal code :
> Fra.Cha.10.Tro
> The problem is for huge town, with several abcusers. Why not
> adding the first letters of the name ? Fra.Cha.10.Tro.For
> But it's quite a long code.
Yes, it is. I like the anology with Usenet message-ids - a machine-name is
already unique across the internet, so why not use that ? And the only
other thing that's needed is a unique number (or other ID) for each tune
on that machine.
> Personally I don't think it's a good idea to use this code in the
> X: field, because some programs get upset with this (for example a
> %text is removed after saving tune if it is on the X: line in
> AbcMus).
I agree. Since already exists, inventing new uses for it is likely to
create conflict with existing software ...
> The Z: field is for the transcriver, so we ought to use
> it. In an other hand, increasing the X:number to a 8 number code
> could be a good idea, for identifing volumes, music style etc. in
> an abc collection.
... and likewise with Z: - a "magic word" uniquely identifying a tune is
not the same thing as the name of the person who transcribed that tune.
And again likewise, inventing new meanings for an X: number is fine for
whoever invents (and implements) them, but strange things might happen
when it meets other peoples' software.
I dunno. Personally, since I need such a numbering scheme, I'm using a
%%ID:xxxxxxxx line, on the grounds that it won't conflict with any
accepted usages; and when I get that sorted out and it reaches my
web-collection I'll use another such '%%' line for the 'base' collection,
or maybe (probably) to form a URL. Such a scheme will never be more than
one person's particular addition unless the writers of the software in use
choose to incorporate it. Even then there's always "the John Chambers
Case" - people who read ABC directly and can't even be bothered to include
an X: line :- but we can't do anything about that :)
--
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
