Re: [GLISS] why the hell all this fuss

[David Kastrup]

Reinhold Kainhofer <address@hidden> writes:

> On 06/09/2012 10:05, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Janek Warchoł <address@hidden> writes:
>>> That's more like it, but i'm not totally sure.
>>> What i think of is a general way of attaching objects to another
>>> objects.  For example '&' would attach objects:
>>> <c e g>\arpeggio&\<  meaning  a hairpin attached to arpeggio
>>> g\fermata&\markup \italic {10 seconds}  meaning  a "10 seconds" markup
>>> attached to the fermata.
>> You are thinking in ways of PDF.  LilyPond is meant for expressing
>> music.  If we build in syntax like that, it should carry musical
>> meaning, not just create pretty images.  How do you "attach" things like
>> that to MIDI or MusicXML?
>
> That argument also holds for \markup, yet we have the \markup command as
> an integral part of lilypond. Just because one concept does not have any
> correspondence e.g. in MIDI, this doesn't mean that we should not
> provide a way to use it in output formats where it makes sense...

You can leave off a markup in MIDI, and provide some conversion for it
in MusicXML.  When the syntax itselfs allows combining basic syntactic
elements that have, on their own, a MIDI/MusicXML representation, it
seems somewhat stranger to just flunk out altogether when compared with
explicitly graphics-only elements.

-- 
David Kastrup