Re: Request for feedback on 'lobbying' paper

[Urs Liska]

Hi David,

please let me take most of your comment as acknowledged and allow me one
further inquiry:

Am Montag, den 22.04.2013, 12:30 +0200 schrieb David Kastrup:
> Urs Liska <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > Am Montag, den 22.04.2013, 11:41 +0200 schrieb David Kastrup:
> >> Urs Liska <address@hidden> writes:
> >> 
> >> >> > [...] MusicXML [...]

> >> >> ...
> 

> Reality check.
> 
...

> So moving LilyPond into a strategic position is more than just
> vigorously agreeing how great it would be if it supported MusicXML
> better.
> 
> It would require a large coordinated effort, on multiple issues, by
> people vested into it, and seriously trying to get the ball rolling.
> And willing to wade through all the required bureaucracy and time sinks
> and keep track of the loose ends.
> 
Is this 'It' referring to 'moving LilyPond into a strategic position' or
to adding MusicXML export to LilyPond?
AFAIR the result of earlier threads I was involved in was something
like: If we make do with exporting the plain content structure (i.e.
without LilyPond's layout decisions) it should be 'enough' to catch the
music output stream (although I don't fully understand what this is yet)
and transform it to a MusicXML file.
Is that true, halfways true or wrong?

Of course your comments on workforce, interests and money apply even if
it's not much more than a kind of XSLT transformation, but I'd like to
know that anyway.

Urs