On lun, 2002-12-30 at 13:08, Magnus Manske wrote:
What's with the Tex feature update? Anything final yet?
It's sitting in CVS, and the fixed English language file looks right. (** But we're still missing translations for the TeX options for most languages! **)
Shall I install it wikipedia-wide? Is there any objection other than Toby's? See: http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texvc
On a related note, I'd like some feedback on the suggestion to provide support for inline musical notation via GNU Lilypond: http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_markup
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
On a related note, I'd like some feedback on the suggestion to provide support for inline musical notation via GNU Lilypond: http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_markup
In favor if we can get possible security issues sorted out (anyone e- mailed the Lilypond folks yet?). Also, we should run some performance tests on the MIDI generation etc. to make sure that it's not too taxing.
Since this is likely to come up again, should we think about a general plugin framework or something like that? texvc might be extended in that fashion.
Regards,
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
On a related note, I'd like some feedback on the suggestion to provide support for inline musical notation via GNU Lilypond: http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_markup
In favor if we can get possible security issues sorted out (anyone e- mailed the Lilypond folks yet?). Also, we should run some performance tests on the MIDI generation etc. to make sure that it's not too taxing.
Since this is likely to come up again, should we think about a general plugin framework or something like that? texvc might be extended in that fashion.
http://lilypond.org/stable/Documentation/user/out-www/lilypond/First-steps.h...
It writes "C" for "\time 4/4"? Urg! LaTex "feels" like maths feels -- I think this stuff will feel very odd to the average musician.
It should be fine for basics. Don't expect anyone to transcribe Mozart with it though! That said, I think the basics are all we'll need. (otherwise, there's
MusicXML
Brion Vibber wrote in part:
Shall I install [texvc] wikipedia-wide? Is there any objection other than Toby's? See: http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texvc
Since Tomasz responded yes when everybody knew that he thought so, then I won't feel bad about responding no when everybody knows that I think that. In any case, get Axel's answer first.
My essay on the above page left out an important point: Why we shouldn't install texvc now and then fix it later (assuming that the essay is persuasive on other points). Basically, the reason is that supporting LaTeX directly (as Axel and I want) won't be backwards compatible with current texvc; fixing it later will break some things.
I realise that I now need to get to work on writing an alternative to texvc that we can install soon. (Saying that texvc isn't good enough is unhelpful if there's nothing that is!) I hope that Axel agrees with my opinions on TeX support and will help. I don't expect that Tomasz will want to help, but of course I'd welcome anybody. (How such an alternative would work is already outlined in the essay.)
-- Toby
On lun, 2002-12-30 at 23:23, Toby Bartels wrote:
Why we shouldn't install texvc now and then fix it later (assuming that the essay is persuasive on other points). Basically, the reason is that supporting LaTeX directly (as Axel and I want) won't be backwards compatible with current texvc; fixing it later will break some things.
Is there anything that couldn't be fixed by a script (such as texvc itself modified to spit out the preferred LaTeX forms) which would hunt down and fix articles with problem math?
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org