On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 16:33:29 +0100, Anthonys Lists wrote:
On 24/04/2015 12:42, Gilles wrote:
Even if not everyone will agree on "the" standard layout, I feel
that it
is extremely important to define one, with the maximum flexibility.
The problem arises, of course, when there are existing, conflicting,
standards.
There IS a standard out there, to which pretty much EVERY Brass Band
march part I've seen adheres to (probably B&H house style, as they
are
the dominant publisher), that lilypond just does not produce by
default. Yet talk to an orchestral musician and I guess many of them
would say that the lilypond style feels "natural".
If you impose a single style, you are pretty much guaranteeing that
certain branches of music will stay away because the "house" style is
just totally "wrong".
At a minimum, you need different basic styles for different types of
music. Of course, if style sheets become a lilypond reality, that
will
make life a lot better in that respect ...
I was not at all suggesting a uniform layout of the "printed" output!
On the contrary, I propose a standard way for managing an encoding
project: list of files, names of those files, separation of concerns
(contents vs graphical output), naming of variables, settings for
different printed output (according to standard practice for the
music style at hand), etc, etc.
Best regards,
Gilles
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
