Re: glossary.

[Dave Pawson]

At 17:22 16/12/2003, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:

> >>     http://www.nongnu.org/xml2ly/
> >
> > Great. Then the XXX to lilypond will be just as easy.
>
> Except that you lose anything in XXX that cannot be expressed in xml.

Hence my other comment.
The central item is the XML, that's the interchange standard?
XML to X is the goal,
I suggested that lilypond is the recipient of the transform.


> > Braille producers .... or at least us, accept that there
> > is likely to be media specific 'tweaking'. I guess music
> > will be just the same.
>
> Yes.  The specific tweaking that can be done in the .ly file and
> possibly some other music content will be missing from the xml.

WHich is where we put the skilled effort.
Into making the print | braille ..... look/feel good.


> > <myView>I wrote a book on XSL-FO, which is a print formatter spec
> > from w3c. Some people call xsl-fo a 'final form', i.e. its not meant
> > to go 'more general', than that. I'd put lilypond, musixTex into the
> > same category, a typesetting, document bound format, rather than an
> > interchange format. On that basis lilypond would be a target rather
> > than a source?</myView>
>
> Yes, on that basis it would, but if the lilypond source contains more
> information than the *xml you'll have a hard time generating it.

Again. Lilypond to XML could be 'uphill', hence yes.
I suggested that the transform direction be XML to lilypond,
I.e. downhill.

>   FYI,
> musixtex is mostly typesetting commands whereas lilypond needs very
> typesetting directives, you can hardly compare those.

I don't understand this statement.


> > I can't say I'm keen on <a href=".ly file"><img src="some.png"
> > alt="empty" /> </a> form, since it screws normal image access,
> > but its a minor niggle.
>
> Yes, that could be an option.

I now have a valid docbook xml document, with references
to the .ly files. Need to check the encoding,
and add my 'extras'.


> > I was enquiring about MusicTex and Lilypond, is are they
> > derived from the same base?
>
> No.


Interesting.

regards DaveP