Hi David, please let me take most of your comment as acknowledged and allow me one further inquiry:
Am Montag, den 22.04.2013, 12:30 +0200 schrieb David Kastrup: > Urs Liska <[email protected]> writes: > > > Am Montag, den 22.04.2013, 11:41 +0200 schrieb David Kastrup: > >> Urs Liska <[email protected]> writes: > >> > >> >> > [...] MusicXML [...] > >> >> ... > > Reality check. > ... > So moving LilyPond into a strategic position is more than just > vigorously agreeing how great it would be if it supported MusicXML > better. > > It would require a large coordinated effort, on multiple issues, by > people vested into it, and seriously trying to get the ball rolling. > And willing to wade through all the required bureaucracy and time sinks > and keep track of the loose ends. > Is this 'It' referring to 'moving LilyPond into a strategic position' or to adding MusicXML export to LilyPond? AFAIR the result of earlier threads I was involved in was something like: If we make do with exporting the plain content structure (i.e. without LilyPond's layout decisions) it should be 'enough' to catch the music output stream (although I don't fully understand what this is yet) and transform it to a MusicXML file. Is that true, halfways true or wrong? Of course your comments on workforce, interests and money apply even if it's not much more than a kind of XSLT transformation, but I'd like to know that anyway. Urs _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
