On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Albert Graef wrote:
this general language is the whole problem.
you can't send OSC to "an OSC capable plugin" or "an external OSC
application" in any generalized sense, because there is no shared
format for the messages.
the sequence of messages that you record may make sense to Pure Data,
but make absolutely no sense to, say, CSound.
the motivation to develop the infrastructure for recording, playback,
disk storage and editing of such messages is not very strong when any
given sequence can only target one particular OSC receiver. the
motivation isn't zero, to be clear. but it just isn't that strong.
> I don't know if it's of practical use for anyone else, but time and again I
then its about time that people using OSC start defining some
standardized messages. MIDI did this from the start, and for all of
its limitations, its been a wild success. the OSC community has
self-consciously avoided doing this - lets queue up another pointless
argument about how to represent notes/frequencies/intervals - and as a
result is still only a niche protocol with every transmitter and
receiver defining their own messages. double fail ...