Re: Request for feedback on 'lobbying' paper

[Urs Liska]

Am Montag, den 22.04.2013, 11:41 +0200 schrieb 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.
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.
>