Tim Roberts <[email protected]> writes: > Janek Warchoł wrote: >> Unfortunately, that's not going to happen soon. Even small, local >> publishers (i've asked some not long ago) are not interested in >> anything else than Finale/Sibelius. I predict that it will take 3-5 >> years before any major publisher begins using LilyPond, let alone >> switching significant part of the production to it - they are just too >> set in stone. > > That's really unfortunate, because the LilyPond format has some provable > and very significant advantages over the Finale/Sibelius formats. It's > exactly the same situation as troff and LaTeX vs Word and InDesign. > LilyPond, being a text format, can be diffed by source code control and > configuration management tools.
The same could be said for MusicXML. LilyPond is human readable. And, for better or worse, it is programmable. > Further, binary formats "decay" over time. If you had a document from > Word 5 from 1992, I doubt very much that Word 2010 could even open it, > and it would be hard to find a converter. I am pretty sure XML-based formats will decay as well, text or not. LilyPond, of course, also decays, but being human-readable, it still preserves information that has a chance of getting recovered. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
