GSoC update; Q's about final/draft modes, and triggering footnotes

[Jeffery Shivers]

Hi fellow LP users,

Firstly, thanks to Urs for all his guidance in the project so far. The
LaTeX package for scholarLY is inching forward still, and hopefully I
will share an initial version after a few more kinks have been worked
out with a couple of the features. I'll have more substantial details
soon, and ideally all will be wrapped in some sort of early
documentation along with the package and example docs.

I would like to ask for some feedback regarding two general topics.

***Footnotes***
Currently, in the annotation interface, we can set an `ann-footnote`
property which is sent to LaTeX as a footnote for the entire
annotation message (and not realized in LilyPond as an in-score
footnote). That is particularly useful/necessary for making sure that,
if used, the superscript would be placed *after* punctuation and
quotes (or whatever else might be used). Additionally any `\fn...`
used in a message property, such as `\fnSpecialNote` will link to the
value associated with `fn-special-note-text` if set (which is also
only applied in LaTeX and *not* lilypond, i.e. the score itself). So,
in use:

    \criticalRemark \with {
        message = "My message with\fnUnique two footnotes."
        fn-unique-text = "A footnote within the message."
        ann-footnote = "A footnote for the entire message."
    } NoteHead c4

My question, since another aim is to actually trigger lilypond/score
footnotes from within annotations as well, is *how* you would
want/expect that to be implemented, including the nomenclature. My
initial thought is to add `score-footnote` as an additional (optional)
property in the annotation interface, and automatically link it to the
corresponding grob. It seems straightforward enough, but I want to be
sure I am not overlooking some other way of approaching this that
would be more intuitive.

***Final/"draft" Modes***
OpenLilyLib will ideally be used in final/draft/etc. modes in order to
toggle between fancy/plain settings, or really whatever the user
decides to work out. The idea is to be able to set/compile settings in
either mode at the individual package level (i.e. scholarLY, etc.),
and also to be able to toggle all-at-once by directing OLL's mode. And
individual packages will have an additional optional setting to *keep*
whatever mode regardless of OLL's mode, if so desired.

The question here is about naming mostly. A `final` mode is ideally
the *implicit* mode, so it doesn't have to be explicitly set (though
it still could be). An alternative mode, `draft` would need to be
turned on explicitly. There have apparently been discussions in the
past particularly about the name "draft" (though I haven't found them
in my search); in any case, I'd like to know what others think about
that now, and of course the concept of this feature in general.

Looking forward to your thoughts about these things, and to
following-up with some test-drivable results in the near future.

all best,
Jeffery