Work on MusicXML 4.0 is still at the stage of taking care of documentation issues. Issue #62<\/a> concerning arpeggio signs and and issue #254<\/a> concerning bar repeats have been resolved and closed. Next up will be issue #53<\/a>, clarifying what should happen when layout<\/strong> elements are missing from the print<\/strong> element, followed by issue #287<\/a>, which is a further issue concerning documentation for bar repeats. Community members are invited to review pull request #323<\/a>, which addresses issue #53.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Michael also opened issue #321<\/a> for slash notation in irregular meters and proposes bringing that into scope for MusicXML 4.0.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Adrian has created pull request #190<\/a>, adding repeat<\/strong> and jump<\/strong> elements to the MNX-Common specification. The aspect that is not yet completely addressed is determining the way of handling multiple codas and segnos; the co-chairs discussed the approach that should be taken, whether it makes sense to encode double coda and double segno explicitly, or to use a system of identifiers to disambiguate individual coda and segno symbols. It was decided that we should use the latter approach, and Adrian will update the pull request accordingly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Adrian also created issue #191<\/a> concerning the ongoing question of the naming of MNX-Common. While it is still the view of the co-chairs that we should adopt MNX as the new name for MNX-Common, we invite the community to give feedback on this issue once again.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Adrian plans to split the MNX-Common by Example<\/a> page into multiple pages to prevent it from becoming unwieldy. The co-chairs are also looking into alternative technologies for building the MNX specification, with a view to making it easier to create cross-links between the spec and the MNX-Common by Example page, and possibly for use with updated MusicXML documentation in future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is a pull request<\/a> awaiting integration, which Daniel will take care of when he has made the necessary upstream change to be sure it won’t be overwritten the next time SMuFL is updated. Daniel also has a small list of glyphs whose canonical names should ideally be changed, but since there has been a commitment not to change glyph names since SMuFL 1.0, this needs to be discussed with the community to assess the impact. Daniel will create this issue soon.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The next co-chair meeting is scheduled for Tuesday 4 August 2020<\/strong>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" MusicXML 4.0 Work on MusicXML 4.0 is still at the stage of taking care of documentation issues. Issue #62 concerning arpeggio signs and and issue #254 concerning bar repeats have been resolved and closed. Next up will be issue #53, … Continue reading MNX-Common<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
SMuFL<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Next meeting<\/h3>\n\n\n\n