[gmpi] Re: MIDI: Proposed Reqs (try #2)

On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 11:53:05AM -0400, Ron Kuper wrote:
> Here are my comments on your comments.  Overall I'm happy.
> 
> I think the "1.0" needs to stay in MIDI, so that the requirements are
> consistent in case somebody invents MIDI 2.0 before we finish the spec
> and deliverable.   So everywhere you wrote "MIDI" please use "MIDI 1.0".

Can I just say in the prolog something like "All references to MIDI refer
to the MIDI 1.0 standard, as defined by the MMA." ?

> >>>
> > Req. 70: MIDI I/O BY PLUGS 
> I'm really confused.  Isn't this covered by the previous req(s)?  Or
> rather,
> it WOULD be covered if we took out the word "external" in them
> <<<
> 
> I think the requirement is worth keeping in, if only for emphasis: GMPI
> won't mean we can't write MIDI-only music processors.

OK

> >>>
> > Req. 72: HW/SW STUDIO ROUTING/MANAGEMENT 
> I'm confused by the new term.  What is a MIDI connection?
> <<<
> 
> I think I know what one is, but I don't think there's anyway to discover
> one unless we explicity tag control inputs as being MIDI typed.

?? I'm totally missing what the requirement here is?

> > Req. 73: MIDI-ORIENTED MUSIC PROCESSORS
> Again, I am confused.  Do you want to generate MIDI or not MIDI?  This
> req
> just isn't clear as it is put, to me.
> <<<
> 
> As in req 70, I think useful to keep this for emphasis.

I'm fine with #70, can I bundle this message into that req?  They say the
same thing..

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Generalized Music Plugin Interface (GMPI) public discussion list
Participation in this list is contingent upon your abiding by the
following rules:  Please stay on topic.  You are responsible for your own
words.  Please respect your fellow subscribers.  Please do not
redistribute anyone else's words without their permission.

Archive: http://www.freelists.org/archives/gmpi
Email gmpi-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx w/ subject "unsubscribe" to unsubscribe

Other related posts: