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