On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 07:41:02PM +0100, Martijn Sipkema wrote: > > 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. I know you're advocating that, and it boggles my mind that you find it reasonable. > > 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 Non-sequitur. Why is it important to keep it separate? GIVE ME A REASON? I am begging you, show me the light that apparantly you see that I do not.. > later and not be decided now. Note also that I'm not proposing using > MIDI instead of a parameter system for non-instrument plugins. Why are instruments different from non-instruments? Just for one second, ignore note-on/off. A synth has a bunch of parameters that can be manipulated somewhow, right? It's no different than any other plugin, so why should it not use the same mechanism as other plugins? Now add back note-on/off. The GMPI proposal from Chris handles note-on off in a very similar way to MIDI. Where's the problem? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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