Hi fellow LP users, Firstly, thanks to Urs for all his guidance in the project so far. The LaTeX package for scholarLY is inching forward still, and hopefully I will share an initial version after a few more kinks have been worked out with a couple of the features. I'll have more substantial details soon, and ideally all will be wrapped in some sort of early documentation along with the package and example docs.
I would like to ask for some feedback regarding two general topics. ***Footnotes*** Currently, in the annotation interface, we can set an `ann-footnote` property which is sent to LaTeX as a footnote for the entire annotation message (and not realized in LilyPond as an in-score footnote). That is particularly useful/necessary for making sure that, if used, the superscript would be placed *after* punctuation and quotes (or whatever else might be used). Additionally any `\fn...` used in a message property, such as `\fnSpecialNote` will link to the value associated with `fn-special-note-text` if set (which is also only applied in LaTeX and *not* lilypond, i.e. the score itself). So, in use: \criticalRemark \with { message = "My message with\fnUnique two footnotes." fn-unique-text = "A footnote within the message." ann-footnote = "A footnote for the entire message." } NoteHead c4 My question, since another aim is to actually trigger lilypond/score footnotes from within annotations as well, is *how* you would want/expect that to be implemented, including the nomenclature. My initial thought is to add `score-footnote` as an additional (optional) property in the annotation interface, and automatically link it to the corresponding grob. It seems straightforward enough, but I want to be sure I am not overlooking some other way of approaching this that would be more intuitive. ***Final/"draft" Modes*** OpenLilyLib will ideally be used in final/draft/etc. modes in order to toggle between fancy/plain settings, or really whatever the user decides to work out. The idea is to be able to set/compile settings in either mode at the individual package level (i.e. scholarLY, etc.), and also to be able to toggle all-at-once by directing OLL's mode. And individual packages will have an additional optional setting to *keep* whatever mode regardless of OLL's mode, if so desired. The question here is about naming mostly. A `final` mode is ideally the *implicit* mode, so it doesn't have to be explicitly set (though it still could be). An alternative mode, `draft` would need to be turned on explicitly. There have apparently been discussions in the past particularly about the name "draft" (though I haven't found them in my search); in any case, I'd like to know what others think about that now, and of course the concept of this feature in general. Looking forward to your thoughts about these things, and to following-up with some test-drivable results in the near future. all best, Jeffery _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user