[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: glossary.
From: |
Jan Nieuwenhuizen |
Subject: |
Re: glossary. |
Date: |
Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:22:51 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.1003 (Gnus v5.10.3) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) |
Dave Pawson writes:
> XML was designed to be readable by both.
Bet it was designed by a computer, then ;-)
>>music printing is a dounting task.
>
> Try music braille. Now that *is* daunting:-)
Thanks, we'll leave that to brilliant hackers like you.
>> http://www.nongnu.org/xml2ly/
>
> Great. Then the XXX to lilypond will be just as easy.
Except that you lose anything in XXX that cannot be expressed in xml.
> Braille producers .... or at least us, accept that there
> is likely to be media specific 'tweaking'. I guess music
> will be just the same.
Yes. The specific tweaking that can be done in the .ly file and
possibly some other music content will be missing from the xml.
> Our goal is generating all required media from the same source.
Good luck.
>> lilypond-book music-glossary.tely
>
> This provides valid \tex?
Yes, or html, or latex.
> <myView>I wrote a book on XSL-FO, which is a print formatter spec
> from w3c. Some people call xsl-fo a 'final form', i.e. its not meant
> to go 'more general', than that. I'd put lilypond, musixTex into the
> same category, a typesetting, document bound format, rather than an
> interchange format. On that basis lilypond would be a target rather
> than a source?</myView>
Yes, on that basis it would, but if the lilypond source contains more
information than the *xml you'll have a hard time generating it. FYI,
musixtex is mostly typesetting commands whereas lilypond needs very
typesetting directives, you can hardly compare those.
> So... lp-book expects those embedded commands, the remaining html
> (any specific version?) is passed through?
Yes.
> I can't say I'm keen on <a href=".ly file"><img src="some.png"
> alt="empty" /> </a> form, since it screws normal image access,
> but its a minor niggle.
Yes, that could be an option.
> I was enquiring about MusicTex and Lilypond, is are they
> derived from the same base?
No.
>>That's not your fault, it has to grow on you. If you're not a
>>musician or typeseting expert you wouldn't notice.
> Maybe. My colleagues will / would. I work with a group of
> music+braille 'experts'. (All relative)
Maybe. But it would not hurt to let them read our essay.
Jan.
--
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <address@hidden> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien | http://www.lilypond.org
- glossary., Dave Pawson, 2003/12/15
- Re: glossary., Jan Nieuwenhuizen, 2003/12/15
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Re: glossary.,
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <=
- Re: glossary., Dave Pawson, 2003/12/16
Re: glossary., Mats Bengtsson, 2003/12/15
Re: glossary., Laura Conrad, 2003/12/15