[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

More comments on the web site

From: Reuben Thomas
Subject: More comments on the web site
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 16:02:57 +0100 (CET)

The FAQ looks ugly in my browser (Opera 7.23 for Linux). This is, AFAICS,
because of mismatched header tags, e.g.

<h1>Frequently asked questions</h2>

There are a couple of instances of this on the page; the next one is at

<h3>How can I thank you for LilyPond?</h2>

Also the FAQ isn't linked to from the Documentation page.

If you're going (correctly) to say that much computer-produced music looks
bland and has typographical mistakes, it's also worth pointing out the
exceptions. I don't know about the products of Oxford University Press in
general, but in particular they publish the music of John Rutter, who
typesets his own compositions (using the old RISC OS version of Sibelius,
which for various reasons he still finds superior to the current Windows
version), although admittedly he has to perform many adjustments to the
default output to get, for example, beautiful note spacing. Nonetheless,
the total workload is still far less than it would have been if engraved
by hand. He also benefits enormously from the WYSIWYG nature of Sibelius,
and I doubt he'd be sympathetic to the command-based input format of
Lilypond, nor any of the crude graphical front-ends. (I, being a long-term
LaTeX user, am much more sympathetic to markup-based input, though using
MusicTeX (not MusiXTeX) put me off doing music this way for many years
(about 20 hours to input an 80 bar piece for 2 voices and piano, including
learning how to use MusicTeX, seemed excessive).

http://www.mupsych.org/~rrt/ | poetry, n.  platitude made obscure

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]