Hi, some general comments:
On Fri, 5 Nov 2004, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > ... > > COMMUNICATION > > The development team should be present at the 2005 Linux Audio > Developers Meeting (april 2005) in Karlsruhe. This requires writing a > paper, which I plan to do myself. Nevertheless, interested writers are > welcome to contact me, should they wish to attend as well. For > example, it would be interesting to have a case-study of "advanced" > LilyPond use. > The web page for the upcoming meeting (21-24 April 2005) is at http://www.zkm.de/lac/ and the page of the previous meeting is still available at: http://www.zkm.de/lad/ The LAD people have further material (slides, papers, fotos, etc.): http://www.linuxdj.com/audio/lad/eventszkm2003.php3 http://www.linuxdj.com/audio/lad/eventszkm2004.php3 The past two meetings, strictly speaking you did not need to write a paper to attend and also did not have to pay a fee for attendance. However, the meeting seems getting more and more professional with respect to the quality of the papers and presentations, and therefore I expect that sooner or later there will be a formal registration process. By the way, I am planning to submit a paper (not about lily, but on image-to-audio transformation), i.e. I will very likely participate! > * Right now, there are a bunch of programs that try to export (and > even: import) .ly files. This is rather impractical for a number of > reasons. It would be much better if we could read and write .ly > files in XML (or similar format). This should be thought of along > the lines of the to-xml.ly example file. Maybe this could also solve some of the convert-ly problems. At least, applying XSL transformations sounds to me much more sound than simple character replacement based on regular expressions. > I invite you all to follow this example, and post where you would like > to steer LilyPond to. To keep the discussion focused, please respond > with what you plan to contribute rather than what you want to have. As usual, I am running too many projects at the same time... I probably will not be able to create major contributions before March. However, as a (hopefully) rather small project, I am going to introduce high-level ligature macros (roughly following the informal code fragment table at the end of section 5.16.10.2 in the user manual). The high-level syntax will look very close to what MusixTeX and OpusTeX do; however, the implementation will map to the current, much more flexible, low-level language, while MusixTeX and OpusTeX use a simple hard-coded mapping from high-level syntax to metafont glyphs. The idea of having an additional low-level language (as currently implemented in lily) is to abstract from a particular notation style (such as vaticana versus hufnagel), such that conversion between them becomes trivial for the user (i.e. just plugging in different backends for the same input syntax by selecting a particular ligature-engraver). Greetings, Jürgen _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel