Re: lilypond & wikipedia

[Graham Percival]

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 11:32:11AM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> Op maandag 02-02-2009 om 02:21 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Johannes
> Schindelin:
> 
> > > Assign two Frogs to the task:
> > > - one person ensures that lilypond input without **any** scheme
> > >   will always end in a reasonable amount of time.
> > > - one person modifies --safe.  I'm sure that we can whitelist a
> > >   few more commands (IIRC changing the paper size is not "safe").
> > >   But we'll certainly need to remove much of the more basic stuff.
> 
> we should probably mention on the wikipedia page that these concerns
> are being worked on.

Maybe.  I'd wait until they *had* been worked on -- at least the
first option.  Of course, at the moment, nobody is doing anything
about these, so this discussion isn't going to produce anything.

(unless it catches somebody's interest and they volunteer)

>  Why doesn't WikiPedia come to us with questions
> or bug reports?

I think they're accustomed to people coming begging to them.  :)

*shrug*

I don't see this as a big deal.  The output quality and notation
features supported in lilypond vs. abc isn't even worth debating;
once the security issues are addressed, there's no contest.  Every
four months, we get somebody posting on the -user list to say
that they've added a such-and-such wiki extension to allow
lilypond.  Then we all point out the security implications, and
they either do it anyway, or take it down and wait.


As I always say, lilypond can do it if there's enough interest.
If there's real, honest, interest in lilypond-in-a-wiki, then
somebody will step forwards to work on the issues.  Even if that
somebody has no knowledge of scheme, lilypond internals, etc... if
they're really interested in this stuff, they'll learn the
relevant material and then submit patches to lilypond.

If nobody *is* really, honestly, interested in this project, then
let's stop wasting electrons discussing it.

Cheers,
- Graham