On 08/25/2011 01:41 PM, Urs Liska wrote: > So I think in order to improve acceptance of LilyPond also with bigger > publishers the main prerequisite would be to have a wider infrastructure > of reliable engravers around. If it has become "normal" to look for > somebody editing with LilyPond it may be an option for publishing houses. > Then maybe the exact look of the result isn't that crucial anymore as > publishers change their "look and feel" anyway from time to time.
I don't think you understand the issue from the publisher's point of view. The issue is not "Can you create the publisher's look and feel with Lilypond?" (you surely can) or "Can you find a reliable Lilypond engraver?" (again, you surely can, although it would be nice if there were more). The issue is that if you have a manuscript score engraved in Lilypond that needs lots of small individual custom tweaks (as almost all scores do prior to publication), it's almost certainly easier to redo the score from scratch in Finale and then make additional necessary tweaks, than it is to correct the existing Lilypond score. A corresponding issue exists in scientific publishing -- many scientists use LaTeX to prepare manuscripts, but in the publishers' typesetting process these are often retyped from scratch in Word prior to copyediting and layout, because minor tweaks to text and layout are far easier to make in Word and InDesign than they are in LaTeX, for all LaTeX' power and beauty. Availability of more highly-skilled Lilypond engravers will certainly help adoption, but it doesn't solve the crucial issue which leads publishers (and others) to use other tools. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
