>| You can try to get ABC convenient, readable, close to some staff >| notation or what ever you wan't. But first of all you must keep (or >| get) it to contain unique (well formed or well defined if you want) >| information. >Well, now; I'm not sure I'd agree with that. Granted, I'd like to see >such a computerized notation, and I suspect that both the lilypond >and MusicML people are making good progress toward such a goal. But I >don't think that we should push ABC in this direction. ABC's niche >that led to its success is that it's a relatively simple, basic, >plain-text notation that is compact and mailable. It doesn't require >a sophisticated UI; it can be typed (and read) by mere humans. None >of this would be true of any notation that is well formed and well >defined.
Predicate calculus is simpler than ABC and as "well formed and well defined" as anybody could want. It's sloppy, ill-defined notations that need fancy user interfaces. As far as I can see (from examples Laura has sent me) lilypond is nowhere near in the same league of precision as ABC - it's a random grab-bag of typesetting hacks. =================== <http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/jack/> =================== To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
