Am Montag, den 22.04.2013, 11:41 +0200 schrieb David Kastrup: > Urs Liska <li...@ursliska.de> writes: > > >> > [...] MusicXML [...] > >> > >> indeed. > >> ;) > > I'd actually say it is crucial to have that in order to get LilyPond a > > foot in the publishing world. We can't expect publishing houses to > > easily switch their well-tested workflows. And it's hard to convince > > editors or organizations preparing editions to switch to a toolchain > > they can't use for delivery. > > As long as the commitment to MusicXML is restricted to the willingness > of vigorously applauding whoever is going to do any actual work > regarding implementing it or organizing any effort, I don't see the > point in proselytizing. I think I'm doing enough to _not_ deserve such biting comment. But I actually plan to go back to this issue with the intention to investigate if/how I can do actual work to bring this further.
> > > One thing which might be important in that respect would be to develop > > some kind of 'coding standard'. I think in our projected ideas we should > > really go for that and present a 'representative' code base that > > - is consistent in its coding style > > - proves being well maintainable > > - is well documented > > - is very compatible with versioning > > Uh, are we still talking about LilyPond? Maybe I wasn't clear enough, and maybe this should actually have been written in a private email. I'm not refering to LilyPond's code base, but to the source code of some edition projects we have been talking about recently. These should be done in a way so they can serve as examples of collaborative editing, and their source code should look organized enough so we can show them around as examples. Urs > > > This would be very good to have as 'promotional material' > > As would be a few solid gold bars. > _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
