On the risk of going too far here (but I think it *is* important at this
point):
Who exactly were the people that insisted on having "MIDI directly *in*
the
graph" (not talking about MIDI support at the edges now, for all clarity)?
I remember that some people from the MMA were insisting on this, and that
based on the rather "heavy" (but comprehensible) reactions, the people
from
the "no MIDI *in* graph" path got to feel that this was a very delicate
issue and gave in a bit on this point (so to speak) although not really
convinced it was really needed. If this perception of the communication at
that time on that subject is wrong, then forgive me for wasting your time
and just delete this mail and forget about it (I can live with the
compromise solution that has been proposed in the current specs).
Now, *if* (note the condition here) we have to "continue on outside the
MMA"
with GMPI, AND IF (note second condition) the big majority of people
not-MMA
affiliated think MIDI *in* the graph is something to avoid, THEN it seems
logical that we should definitely reconsider this point of the specs
before
making them final.
I really hope this whole effort can stay under the MMA umbrella though!
I also thought Mike's points seemed convincing (but I'm not from a big
company of course ;-)).
By the way: how have most big standards evolved historically? I guess
there
is always a "common-way-but-no-official-standard" phase before it is then
made into a standard? I just ask because I'd like to know the chances of
doing this first outside MMA (if the bigger companies aren't interested)
and
then hope that after some wider acceptance it gets turned into a standard.
Doesn't feel realistic to me (unless, as someone said, the ones who do
support it get big functionality gains over other the ones who don't).
About the mandatory MMA membership proposal: as long as input from non-MMA
members is heard, and the final spec is freely available, I can live with
that (but probably won't become a member, no matter how serious I think
about GMPI).
Koen
On Saturday, January 29, 2005 12:28 AM [GMT+1=CET],
Steve Harris <xxxS.W.Harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If GMPI is unlinked from MIDI then I can assure no major commercial
vendor will be very interesting in supporting. MIDI matters in the
real world.
Maybe, but thinking this way, we could as well do fine with VST.
And I didn't mean not 'talking MIDI' (in & out), but working with
MIDI
internally, which is limiting things just like VST is limited.
I hold this viewpoint too, but lets not rake over this discussion again.
It wasted a great deal of many peoples time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: //www.freelists.org/archives/gmpi
Email gmpi-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx w/ subject "unsubscribe" to unsubscribe
