Hi Daniel,
Now that the initial flurry of debate seems to have
subsided, I¹m wondering what your thoughts are for next steps. Certainly
these
initial e-mails have generated many things to consider, which glyphs to
include, how heavily this standard should rely on Open-type features, and
the standardization
of glyph metrics, just to name a few.
Given the unique process for developing a standard that you
have embarked on, several questions come to mind. First off, how do you
propose
all the various issues that have been raised be resolved? Do you see these
issues being voted on by subscribers to this list, decided by a group of
interested industry leaders, or, as owner of SMuFL, will the Steinberg
development
team ultimately make these decisions?
Have other potentially interested parties been reached out
to regarding this process? Along with those already participating, I¹d be
interested in seeing input from other industry leaders such as Avid, Apple,
Adobe, Notion, and the Unicode Consortium, along with the long list of
companies that have adopted MusicXML as a standard already.
Lastly, do you have a time frame in mind for completion of
this process, or do you see it as open-ended?
Thanks,
Mark Adler
#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
the mailing list <
[hidden email]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <
[hidden email]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <
[hidden email]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <
[hidden email]>
Send administrative queries to <
[hidden email]>
Locked
