Thanks for this less...inflammatory (?) reply.
Depends upon one's point of view, doesn't it, and how one responds to criticism?
Still, in my view at least, infinitely prefarable to boring.
As for it being an academic exercise -- we'll see, I guess? I'd like to think that the companies who've spent a boatload of money sending folks to working group meetings for the last bunch for years have done so for reasons other than purely academic.
I suspect for the same reasons I went to CCITT and BSI meetings as a company representative of a major mainframe computer manufacturer, with data communications protocols, etc.
To find out how much these things made sense and whether they might affect future products.
If decisions made there had no commercial sense to criticise and attempt to find agreement for appropriate implementable standards.
If the specifications make no sense or are far too costly to adopt, then to implement, maybe, a limited set of them.
Consider, if you will, why most manufacturers only implement 10 of the 14 potential bits of the most sensitive of MIDI 1 controls, pitch bend.
We have a potentiometer which is centered by spring pressure.
Beacause of its position within a typical MIDI controller keyboard, it has a relatively narrow range of movement.
Maybe 60 degrees in each direction?
The electronics which sense this movement is required to generate more than 16,000 values from this small physical displacement (+/- 8192).
Most companies, in my experience, find this level of accuracy far too expensive to manufacture, hence the restriction to around 1,000 values (probably 0 to 1023),
i.e. +/- 512.
As far as I see the manufacturing costs, implementing note on messages with values in the thousands makes no commercial sense at all.
And, 99.9% of customers have no need for this kind of accuracy. Nor will they be prepared to pay the excessive extra costs of manufacturing.
Look a the cost of the ROLI keyboards, they aren't MIDI 2 and they have no sound generator on board.
All the good old polyphonic aftertouch keyboards have disappeared. Why?
I suspect, too expensive to manufacture and sell at a price and in sufficient volume to make some profit from the development costs.
Hence my comment "a lovely, challenging academic excercise"! I stand by it.
(Actually, extremely simple compared to ISDN 'D' channel signalling at he 'S/T' interface.)
Time may prove me wrong, and It won't be the first time. I'll live with it.
But overall in the last 50 years I've been right more times than wrong with these issues.
And you're allowed to say "Nyah! I told you so!" ii I am proved wrong.
I've not survived into my seventies without taking some criticism, some pretty harsh, along the way.