On Monday, 6 September 1999, Joshua Thielen writes:
> [this got forwarded to me as the list maintainer because it was sent
> from root - drl]
> ------------- Begin Forwarded Message -------------
>
> Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 07:22:27 -0400
> From: Joshua Thielen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Development questions
>
> I would like to know if there is a lilypond development discussion
> group,
You reached it somehow: we're at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> and if so are patches accepted? (Not that I have any right now.)
Patches are very welcome, assuming they pass the Han-Wen test. Lots
to do over here.
> I'm interested in possibly using lilypond to create plugins for Netscape
> and MSIE to view NIFF files. Has anyone discussed creating a free viewer
> for NIFF or SMDL? This would be a big step forward towards the
Uhm, that certainly is a new point of view. I'm afraid you're
underestimating the proportions of the problem that a music typesetter
has to solve, a bit. One of the biggest problems we face is the
definition of the musical input format. We would like to define the
'meaning' of the music unambiguously and in a sensible way; that is,
not as a series of typesetting commands.
If you look, for example, at MIDI input (or output), you'll find that
it contains only about half of the information that was (or should be)
on the sheet music. Most musical formats target 'sound' or 'typesetting',
whereas LilyPond targets 'musical content'.
However, a good look at a NIFF or SMDL converter would do no harm. (I
seem to remember from SMDL that it avoids the problem of defining musical
content by allowing binary data inserts for specific typestters?)
> proliferation of free sheet music. I think lilypond would have to be
> modified to be much smaller, and be less dependant on other programs in
> order for a plugin to be effective. I was thinking I might just use some
> of the code from lilypond but not all of it.
We had that request before: "Why don't you make LilyPond a lot smaller?"
LilyPond is a big program. Fewer, simpler code is always good. But I'm
afraid that a patch that simply removes functionality from LilyPond won't
be included so easily :-)
> Thanks a ton,
> Joshua
Greetings,
Jan.
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien/ | http://www.lilypond.org/
