[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Lilypond to MusicXML (was: Re: New Sibelius to LilyPond conversion s

From: Graham Percival
Subject: Re: Lilypond to MusicXML (was: Re: New Sibelius to LilyPond conversion suite)
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 19:40:55 +0000
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)

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

- Graham

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]