Re: [GSoC] spanners project update

[Urs Liska]

Am 30.06.2016 um 14:37 schrieb David Kastrup:
> Urs Liska <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Am 30.06.2016 um 14:05 schrieb David Kastrup:
>>> Urs Liska <address@hidden> writes:
>>>
>>>> Am 30.06.2016 um 11:52 schrieb David Kastrup:
>>>>>> There is a detail I would like to clarify. David suggested allowing \=
>>>>>>> to optionally specify the parent context in which a cross-voice
>>>>>>> spanner's information is shared (although I am not sure how that would
>>>>>>> be done with a key-list, since I think the spanner id itself is a
>>>>>>> string).
>>>>> Right.  Maybe it should rather be a key?  That would also make
>>>>> comparison generally faster than string comparisons.
>>>>>
>>>> Please consider keeping that as a string.
>>>> When we might start interacting with XML formats (MusicXML, MEI) we'll
>>>> have to deal with string xmlid attributes.
>>> What forms can they take?
>> Well, basically whatever a given project may come up with or what an XML
>> editor may choose to auto-generate or whatever.
>> The following is from a file on http://verovio.org
>>
>>                             <staff n="2">
>>                                 <layer n="1">
>>                                     <beam>
>>                                         <note xml:id="d648110e152" pname="a" 
>> oct="3" dur="8" dots="1" stem.dir="up" accid.ges="f"/>
>>                                         <note xml:id="d648110e173" pname="b" 
>> oct="3" dur="16" stem.dir="up" accid.ges="f"/>
>>                                     </beam>
>>                                     <beam>
>>                                         <note xml:id="d648110e195" pname="b" 
>> oct="3" dur="8" dots="1" stem.dir="up" accid.ges="f"/>
>>                                         <note xml:id="d648110e216" pname="c" 
>> oct="4" dur="16" stem.dir="up"/>
>>                                     </beam>
>>                                     <note xml:id="d648110e236" pname="c" 
>> oct="4" dur="4" stem.dir="up"/>
>>                                 </layer>
>>                             </staff>
> Those are rather simple.
>
>> but I have also seen some more or less intuitive schemes attributing
>> some semantic information to them (context, timing etc.). They might as
>> well be timestamps and/or generated GUIDs.
>>
>> So, basically anything that a string can hold.
> How does that differ from symbols?

Ah, not in the Scheme domain, of course. But you can't *enter* them as
LilyPond code, isn't it?