Re: Fw: Re: digital music editions - is Lilypond a suitable tool forit?

2016-02-14 Thread David Wright
On Sun 14 Feb 2016 at 21:50:08 (+), musicus wrote: > > I don't understand. The only difference between your two attachments > > appears to be that the second one has DOS-style line endings. > > What does that affect? > My browser didn't show the first one as attachement, but displayed the

Re: Fw: Re: digital music editions - is Lilypond a suitable tool for it?

2016-02-14 Thread David Wright
On Sun 14 Feb 2016 at 19:51:53 (+), musicus wrote: > Sorry, didn't know that an attached html file does'nt work... > Please change the attached file to ".html" I don't understand. The only difference between your two attachments appears to be that the second one has DOS-style line endings.

Re: Fw: Re: digital music editions - is Lilypond a suitable tool forit?

2016-02-14 Thread musicus
> I don't understand. The only difference between your two attachments > appears to be that the second one has DOS-style line endings. > What does that affect? My browser didn't show the first one as attachement, but displayed the content as an image and the javascript button did not work.

Fw: Re: digital music editions - is Lilypond a suitable tool for it?

2016-02-14 Thread musicus
Sorry, didn't know that an attached html file does'nt work... Please change the attached file to ".html" JavaScript_Test3.html.rename Description: Binary data ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org