> MusicXML provides multiple ways of encoding the same musical concept, and some applications don't take the effort to check for all possible scenarios.

This sounded interesting, so I went to the webpage, and found this point specifically called out:

> It prioritizes interchange, meaning: it can be generated unambiguously, it can be parsed unambiguously, it favors one-and-only-one way to express concepts, and multiple programs reading the same MNX file will interpret it the same way.

But I'm curious to see some examples of this. https://w3c.github.io/mnx/docs/comparisons/musicxml/ provides an interesting comparison (and calls out how the same MusicXML can be interpreted in different ways for things like octave shifts), but it would be nice if the page also included alternate ways that MusicXML can represent the same composition and talk about how certain programs end up misinterpreting/misrepresenting them. The Parts comparison, for instance, mentions how you can represent the same thing in two different ways in MusicXML (score-timewise and score-partwise), but only provides an example for one (score-partwise), and doesn't go into much more detail about if this leads to ambiguity in interpretation or if it's just making things needlessly complex.