On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 01:27:40PM -0700, Chris Grigg wrote: > >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 Well, I want to toe the line between vagueness (the requirements should be vague enough to not dictate an implementation, usually) and specificity (we have enough things banged out that we don't want to lose). New draft will follow. I know you're swamped, Chris, but I'm specifically looking for your feedback as the de-facto leader of the MiG charge, and author of the cease-fire :) Anyone else, of course, is welcome. > 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 We should not be dictating an implementation, whenever possible. I'm trying to retain as much info as possible, without dictating this as a spec. I'm working an another draft, and I *really* need you and others to read it, and feedback. I'll try to make it right, this 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