Reinhold Kainhofer <reinh...@kainhofer.com> writes: > On 06/09/2012 10:05, David Kastrup wrote: >> Janek Warchoł <janek.lilyp...@gmail.com> writes: >>> That's more like it, but i'm not totally sure. >>> What i think of is a general way of attaching objects to another >>> objects. For example '&' would attach objects: >>> <c e g>\arpeggio&\< meaning a hairpin attached to arpeggio >>> g\fermata&\markup \italic {10 seconds} meaning a "10 seconds" markup >>> attached to the fermata. >> You are thinking in ways of PDF. LilyPond is meant for expressing >> music. If we build in syntax like that, it should carry musical >> meaning, not just create pretty images. How do you "attach" things like >> that to MIDI or MusicXML? > > That argument also holds for \markup, yet we have the \markup command as > an integral part of lilypond. Just because one concept does not have any > correspondence e.g. in MIDI, this doesn't mean that we should not > provide a way to use it in output formats where it makes sense...
You can leave off a markup in MIDI, and provide some conversion for it in MusicXML. When the syntax itselfs allows combining basic syntactic elements that have, on their own, a MIDI/MusicXML representation, it seems somewhat stranger to just flunk out altogether when compared with explicitly graphics-only elements. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel