Re: Scholarly footnotes

On Thu, 2015-11-12 at 12:45 +0100, Urs Liska wrote: > > Am 12.11.2015 um 09:09 schrieb Urs Liska: > > Having had a night over it I realized that there is an obvious first > > step towards b) and c) and that the infrastructure is already there for it! > > I will add support for writing out the

Re: Scholarly footnotes

On 13.11.2015 13:29, Graham King wrote: I might struggle a bit at first to get from Scheme to lilypond markup In case you don’t know about that already: might help. Yours, Simon

Re: Scholarly footnotes

Am 13. November 2015 13:29:30 MEZ, schrieb Graham King : >On Thu, 2015-11-12 at 12:45 +0100, Urs Liska wrote: > >> >> Am 12.11.2015 um 09:09 schrieb Urs Liska: >> > Having had a night over it I realized that there is an obvious >first >> > step towards b) and c) and

Re: Scholarly footnotes

Am 11.11.2015 um 19:16 schrieb Urs Liska: > > > Am 10.11.2015 um 17:39 schrieb Urs Liska: >> >> >> Am 10.11.2015 um 17:08 schrieb Graham King: >>> ... long snip ... >>> >>> I confess I'm a bit daunted by the LaTeX learning curve, and it is >>> possible that I'm not uniquely inadequate in that

Re: Scholarly footnotes

Am 12.11.2015 um 09:09 schrieb Urs Liska: > Having had a night over it I realized that there is an obvious first > step towards b) and c) and that the infrastructure is already there for it! > I will add support for writing out the raw Scheme object and simply > integrate it as an additional

Re: Scholarly footnotes

Am 10.11.2015 um 17:39 schrieb Urs Liska: > > > Am 10.11.2015 um 17:08 schrieb Graham King: >> ... long snip ... >> >> I confess I'm a bit daunted by the LaTeX learning curve, and it is >> possible that I'm not uniquely inadequate in that respect. So a >> Lilypond-only solution would be ideal

Re: Scholarly footnotes

Hi Urs, first, I'm deeply grateful for your time and thoughtful insights. Further comments interjected, below... all the best -- Graham On Tue, 2015-11-10 at 10:43 +0100, Urs Liska wrote: > Hi Graham, > > now I'll try to go into that somewhat more detailed. > > > Am 09.11.2015 um 17:33

Re: Scholarly footnotes

Am 10.11.2015 um 17:08 schrieb Graham King: > ... long snip ... > > I confess I'm a bit daunted by the LaTeX learning curve, and it is > possible that I'm not uniquely inadequate in that respect. So a > Lilypond-only solution would be ideal for me, and would save others > the prospect of

Re: Scholarly footnotes

Hi Graham, now I'll try to go into that somewhat more detailed. Am 09.11.2015 um 17:33 schrieb Graham King: > I'm preparing an edition of sixteenth-century polyphony, using the > book-titling template[1]. The edition would benefit from some > footnotes/endnotes (the sort that say things like:

Development projects (was: Scholarly footnotes)

Am 10.11.2015 um 03:52 schrieb Craig Dabelstein: > Hi Urs, > > What can I do to help you advance ScholarLY (or any of your other > projects)? Well, the next thing is to constantly nag (but in a friendly manner of course) ;-) But if you would want to do some active contribution you're of course

Re: Scholarly footnotes

Hi Urs, What can I do to help you advance ScholarLY (or any of your other projects)? E.g. do I need to learn scheme? Do I play around with incorporating ScholarLY into Latex? What would be the most helpful for you? Craig On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 at 03:42 Urs Liska wrote: >

Re: Scholarly footnotes

Just shortly: I do think we'll find a good way for you, and I also think this is a good opportunity to continue work on ScholarLY. Especially considering that just a few days ago Craig Dabelstein also asked about ScholarLY. Urs Am 09.11.2015 um 17:33 schrieb Graham King: > I'm preparing an

Scholarly footnotes

I'm preparing an edition of sixteenth-century polyphony, using the book-titling template[1]. The edition would benefit from some footnotes/endnotes (the sort that say things like: "contratenor 1, bar 99: semiminim A missing in MS"). How best to achieve this, while preserving the "book-titling"