Re: Request for feedback on 'lobbying' paper

[David Kastrup]

Urs Liska <address@hidden> writes:

> please let me take most of your comment as acknowledged and allow me one
> further inquiry:
>
> Am Montag, den 22.04.2013, 12:30 +0200 schrieb David Kastrup:
>
>> Reality check.
>> 
> ...
>
>> So moving LilyPond into a strategic position is more than just
>> vigorously agreeing how great it would be if it supported MusicXML
>> better.
>> 
>> It would require a large coordinated effort, on multiple issues, by
>> people vested into it, and seriously trying to get the ball rolling.
>> And willing to wade through all the required bureaucracy and time sinks
>> and keep track of the loose ends.
>> 
> Is this 'It' referring to 'moving LilyPond into a strategic position' or
> to adding MusicXML export to LilyPond?

Moving it into a strategic position.  That involves adding reliable
MusicXML exporting mechanisms.

> AFAIR the result of earlier threads I was involved in was something
> like: If we make do with exporting the plain content structure (i.e.
> without LilyPond's layout decisions) it should be 'enough' to catch
> the music output stream (although I don't fully understand what this
> is yet) and transform it to a MusicXML file.  Is that true, halfways
> true or wrong?

Likely at best halfways.  For example, no header is contained in the
hypothetical "music output stream".  Things like \transpose don't make
it into the "music output stream" but rather just its results.

Which may be enough for some workflows, but not necessary all.  It does
provide more information than the Midi.

> Of course your comments on workforce, interests and money apply even
> if it's not much more than a kind of XSLT transformation, but I'd like
> to know that anyway.

-- 
David Kastrup