Re: edition-engraver and partcombine

[Urs Liska]

Am 16.12.2014 22:33, schrieb Jan-Peter Voigt:
> Hi Urs,
>
> Am 16.12.2014 um 22:28 schrieb Urs Liska:
> > Hi Jan-Peter,
> >
> > that would be great.
> > I intend to write a post about the tool soon - from a user's, not 
> > from the developer's perspective. 
> that would great :)
> > Maybe I should wait with this some more.
> >
> > BTW: I'm still not completely convinced that edition-engraver really 
> > is the right name.
> If you have a proposal, share it ;)

I wouldn't have hesitated to do so, but I don't have a proposal.
The problem I have with it is that in my understanding it isn't even an 
editorial tool, so it would even be located in the wrong place in 
openlilylib. It can be that I'm mistaken here (or at least that the 
issue is more ambiguous than I feel), but in my opinion an editorial 
tool is something an editor uses, with "editor" being meant in the sense 
of "scholarly editor". Editorial tools, as I understand it, could be

- a function to dash/parenthesize/resize editorial additions
- a function to add annotations (not visual annotations like balloonHelp 
but like comments for a critical report)
- a function to visually indicate line breaks in the manuscript
- a function to modify the bar numbering when the edited sketch differs 
from the final version of the piece

Editorial tools can also be functions to improve editorial workflows, 
such as producing versioning info to be printed in the tagline etc. But 
I don't see tools that support the "editor" in the sense of someone 
technically involved in the engraving. Separation of content and 
presentation is a topic that is not on the "edition" side in my view but 
on the technical side of producing an engraving.

This is not meant as an authoritative statement but more to express my 
feelings about organizing and sorting these things.

So, to come to the actual issue at hand: What does "edition engraver" 
sound like to me?
Although I know that an engraver has a specific technical meaning in 
LilyPond "edition engraver" sounds like a tool that engraves an edition. 
And while it definitely helps with "creating different editions from one 
source" this isn't what it is really doing. For example, I wouldn't call 
a printed part and a full score two editions. Usually such targets are 
part of the same "edition". In the traditional publishing business you'd 
consider a full score and a piano reduction as two different (although 
related) editions. In current digital edition concepts "edition" refers 
to the whole corpus of encoded content while the engraved result in one 
form or the other is "only" a more or less arbitrary "rendering" of that 
edition.

I think the "editions" that are set up using \addEdition are rather 
"targets" than "editions". I am adding mods for a given target, like 
full score vs. part, or e-book vs. printed version etc.
So \addTarget would seem more appropriate to me. Maybe one would want to 
make it more specific, maybe I could live with \addEditionTarget.


Basically these musings don't lead anywhere. But I thought I'd share 
them, maybe they trigger some ideas with someone else ...

Best
Urs

> Best, Jan-Peter