Re: Request for feedback on 'lobbying' paper

[David Kastrup]

Urs Liska <address@hidden> 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.

> 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?

> This would be very good to have as 'promotional material'

As would be a few solid gold bars.

-- 
David Kastrup