[gmpi] Re: MIDI: Common event coding
- From: "Martijn Sipkema" <m.j.w.sipkema@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 19:41:02 +0100
From: "Tim Hockin" <thockin@xxxxxxxxxx>
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 07:56:41AM -0400, Ron Kuper wrote:
> > >>>
> > > I agree. GMPI channel numbers should be unbounded. And by the way,
> > should
> > > they also be cookies instead of indices?
> >
> > There goes MIDI compatibility.
> > <<<
> >
> > Forward compatability only.
>
> And only if you take advantage of new features. Is anyone (Martijn?)
> really arguing that we can't add new features to a control protocol
> because it will no longer be representable as standard MIDI?
I'm saying that it's better to support more than one protocol than to
have a single protocol that isn't 100% compatible to MIDI. Use a
seperate protocol for new features.
> Why do anything new, if MIDI is never allowed to be surpassed? That's
> just silly.
Again, that is not what I said.
> So yeah, if you decide to use all these flexible new features, it won't
> play on a piece of MIDI gear. But that gear could not do those things to
> start with.
True. But it is important to realise that thus to keep MIDI seperate from
other protocols. Also, that allows new control protocols to be added
later and not be decided now. Note also that I'm not proposing using
MIDI instead of a parameter system for non-instrument plugins.
--ms
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Other related posts:
