Janek Warchoł <janek.lilyp...@gmail.com> writes: > Wikipedia uses LaTeX to render math formulas. Why couldn't it use > LilyPond to create music examples in articles? > > Why LilyPond is perfect for Wikipedia: > - text input, can be created using a web browser > - easy to create both vector graphics and raster images at any given > resolution > - GNU GPL'ed
Wikipedia was more leaning towards CC licensing schemes. > ...and thats not including Lily great output quality. See how some > examples look now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melisma - yuck!! > > using Lily as built-in score editor will be beneficial for Wikipedia, > and i'm pretty sure that for us it will be a huge promotion! > Thoughts? A publication like Wikipedia would likely have considerable leanings towards a MusicXML-based solution. Like using TeX for maths, anything that easily explodes into self-defined macro systems with questionable long-term compatibility and maintainability is not likely to sit well with them. Easily convertable tweak-less subsets of LilyPond (the sort of thing that would survive a MusicXML roundtrip) would have the best chance to have some appeal. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
