[gmpi] Re: MIDI: Proposed Reqs (try #2)
- From: Chris Grigg <gmpi-public@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 13:27:40 -0700
Tim said:
Anyone?
I'm tired of it too, but we're not done until the reqs are done. I
proposed something, Chris re-wrote it, I followed up - no one has anything
to add?
and:
A rule of thumb I was taught for reqs -
simple language is more likely to be correct.
Didn't want to appear too negative, and unfortunately am too busy for
a detailed answer, so I didn't speak up before. But since you're
soliciting comments, I think in general your rewrite is a little on
the vague side. Which, given how sensitive the MIDI discussion has
been, seems like it .might. cause some problems down the line. In
re. your 'rule of thumb', my experience has been the opposite -- if
you know exactly what you mean to say, and have an exact formulation
of it, then simplifying == throwing away information, and it just has
to be reconstituted later, but at a time when nobody will remember
the subtleties any more. Note, there have been positive comments on
the "try #2" draft as proposed.
To reply to your question on the MIDI map req, that draft req was
only meant to represent the agreement in the full-list discussion,
not add anything new. I'm not sure we need to say here whether the
plug or the host is responsible for performing the actual mapping
operations, the req is only about the plug being able to say what the
map should be.
-- Chris G.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
