4 ms·

Fantastic stuff. I find the choice of MuseScore and it's somewhat proprietary XML-based format an odd choice for "open" though. For example, I tried to open t

by smlacy 12y ago

Fantastic stuff. I find the choice of MuseScore and it's somewhat proprietary XML-based format an odd choice for "open" though. For example, I tried to open these scores using the MuseScore binary that comes with the latest ubuntu, and it was unable to open the files due to the fact that they're written using the pre-release 2.0 version of MuseScore. Personally, I find LilyPond (http://lilypond.org/ http://lilypond.org/) a much better choice for these sorts of "open score" type projects. It's editable without a GUI, and produces best-of-class output. Think of MuseScore as "a drawing program for musical scores" and LilyPond as "a language for expressing scores in a human-readable, generic form" The Mutopia Project (http://www.mutopiaproject.org/ http://www.mutopiaproject.org/) has been hosting and re-engraving public domain scores for a very long time. All the source code including scores is on github via https://github.com/MutopiaProject/MutopiaProject https://github.com/MutopiaProject/MutopiaProject Although MuseScore has a prettier UI, Mutopia and IMSLP have much larger and comprehensive collections. Anyway, Kudos certainly to the recording and performers, they're great, and I look forward to score engravings that don't rely on the MuseScore software.

prokoudine 12y ago
Not sure how lack of full backwards compatibility counts for "somewhat proprietary" :) MuseScore 2.0 simple has a superset of features over 1.x plus design changes. One does not easily work around that for users of 1.x.
- smlacy 12y ago
  "somewhat proprietary" = "Where is the specification of the XML format of MuseScore 2.0 save files" All I could find was http://musescore.org/en/handbook/file-format http://musescore.org/en/handbook/file-format Without a full specification (ideally with parser implementation, example source code for reading & writing, etc.) the XML is essentially proprietary, although still human readable.
  - prokoudine 12y ago
    I'm not sure if it's wise to expect specification of a file format published before the actual software using it is actually released. Let's cut the guys some slack.
    - smlacy 12y ago
      Are there specs for the 1.3 version? Can you provide a link? This specific project was engraved using MuseScore 2.0, and their files cannot be opened using MuseScore 1.3. For me, this is contradictory to the notion of "Open".
      - prokoudine 12y ago
        I can't — simply because I'm an occasional lurker rather than MuseScore developer. You'd have to wait till one of them drops by. Also, I think our views on what counts for open diverge by a few parsecs, because a) MuseScore 2.0 beta is available and will open the files, and b) the score is also available in MusicXML which you can open with just about any contemporary score editor, including MuseScore 1.3 that you have installed.
      - MarcSabatella 12y ago
        I don't understand. Older versions of programs cannot open files created by new versions - that's a simple fact of life, has nothing to do with whether a program is open or not. I doubt many open programs would limit themselves in that way. As for whether the MSCX format is documented or not, of course it is. MuseScore is fully open source. Every line of code responsible for reading and writing this format is freely available to you to examine, compile, etc. It doens't get more open than that.
        smlacy 12y ago
        Source code is not documentation. The MuseScore XML files do not contain any link to a DTD, XSD or other XML DOCTYPE metadata, and thus, they are not self-documenting. By comparison, the MusicXML format is open, because the following documentation is available: http://www.musicxml.com/for-developers/ http://www.musicxml.com/for-developers/ Those zip files contain a complete and full specification of how to read & write MusicXML files, as I'm sure the MuseScore developers are familiar with. I wouldn't consider the MuseScore 1.3 or 2.0 format "open" until there is available full specification of the XML file formats, and the ZIP-based container they're usually wrapped in. Even the MuseScore core developers admit there is no save file documentation and warn against attempting to parse MuseScore's save file format: http://musescore.org/node/13837 http://musescore.org/node/13837 This is not "open", and I think it's wrong to sell these engravings as "open scores" in this context.

by smlacy 12y ago

prokoudine 12y ago

Not sure how lack of full backwards compatibility counts for "somewhat proprietary" :) MuseScore 2.0 simple has a superset of features over 1.x plus design changes. One does not easily work around that for users of 1.x.

smlacy 12y ago
"somewhat proprietary" = "Where is the specification of the XML format of MuseScore 2.0 save files" All I could find was http://musescore.org/en/handbook/file-format http://musescore.org/en/handbook/file-format Without a full specification (ideally with parser implementation, example source code for reading & writing, etc.) the XML is essentially proprietary, although still human readable.
- prokoudine 12y ago
  I'm not sure if it's wise to expect specification of a file format published before the actual software using it is actually released. Let's cut the guys some slack.
  - smlacy 12y ago
    Are there specs for the 1.3 version? Can you provide a link? This specific project was engraved using MuseScore 2.0, and their files cannot be opened using MuseScore 1.3. For me, this is contradictory to the notion of "Open".
    - prokoudine 12y ago
      I can't — simply because I'm an occasional lurker rather than MuseScore developer. You'd have to wait till one of them drops by. Also, I think our views on what counts for open diverge by a few parsecs, because a) MuseScore 2.0 beta is available and will open the files, and b) the score is also available in MusicXML which you can open with just about any contemporary score editor, including MuseScore 1.3 that you have installed.
    - MarcSabatella 12y ago
      I don't understand. Older versions of programs cannot open files created by new versions - that's a simple fact of life, has nothing to do with whether a program is open or not. I doubt many open programs would limit themselves in that way. As for whether the MSCX format is documented or not, of course it is. MuseScore is fully open source. Every line of code responsible for reading and writing this format is freely available to you to examine, compile, etc. It doens't get more open than that.
      - smlacy 12y ago
        Source code is not documentation. The MuseScore XML files do not contain any link to a DTD, XSD or other XML DOCTYPE metadata, and thus, they are not self-documenting. By comparison, the MusicXML format is open, because the following documentation is available: http://www.musicxml.com/for-developers/ http://www.musicxml.com/for-developers/ Those zip files contain a complete and full specification of how to read & write MusicXML files, as I'm sure the MuseScore developers are familiar with. I wouldn't consider the MuseScore 1.3 or 2.0 format "open" until there is available full specification of the XML file formats, and the ZIP-based container they're usually wrapped in. Even the MuseScore core developers admit there is no save file documentation and warn against attempting to parse MuseScore's save file format: http://musescore.org/node/13837 http://musescore.org/node/13837 This is not "open", and I think it's wrong to sell these engravings as "open scores" in this context.