Re: mutopia's shortcomings

[Gilles]

On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 16:33:29 +0100, Anthonys Lists wrote:
> On 24/04/2015 12:42, Gilles wrote:
> > Even if not everyone will agree on "the" standard layout, I feel 
> > that it
> > is extremely important to define one, with the maximum flexibility.
>
> The problem arises, of course, when there are existing, conflicting,
> standards.
>
> There IS a standard out there, to which pretty much EVERY Brass Band
> march part I've seen adheres to (probably B&H house style, as they 
> are
> the dominant publisher), that lilypond just does not produce by
> default. Yet talk to an orchestral musician and I guess many of them
> would say that the lilypond style feels "natural".
>
> If you impose a single style, you are pretty much guaranteeing that
> certain branches of music will stay away because the "house" style is
> just totally "wrong".
>
> At a minimum, you need different basic styles for different types of
> music. Of course, if style sheets become a lilypond reality, that 
> will
> make life a lot better in that respect ...

I was not at all suggesting a uniform layout of the "printed" output!

On the contrary, I propose a standard way for managing an encoding
project: list of files, names of those files, separation of concerns
(contents vs graphical output), naming of variables, settings for
different printed output (according to standard practice for the
music style at hand), etc, etc.


Best regards,
Gilles