From Wikisophia
Jump to: navigation, search

Lyrics! I want this thing to be able to include lyrics! --Nerd42

oh wait it does that already. LOL --Nerd42 17:54, 19 Jan 2006 (CST)


Outstanding issues

The lilypad interface seems to work really well. It's exciting! Three things I think we need to work on. Andrewa 17:30, 20 Jan 2006 (CST)


We need a tutorial, like the one at the lilypond site, but tuned to the exact syntax used here, or if it already exists a prominent link to it.

I'm happy to work on this, but I need some help getting started myself first. e.g. I've posted a message to wikitex-l asking what version of the lilypond syntax is used, but no reply yet. Andrewa 17:30, 20 Jan 2006 (CST)

Lilypond version is 2.2.6 currently on Wikisophia. Lilypond stable version is 2.6.4 currently.
Documentation for Lilypond 2.2.6 is at with a tutorial at and downloads at which unfortunately (for me at least) does not include a Windows version. Andrewa 15:35, 22 Jan 2006 (CST)

See also v2.2 cheatsheet. Andrewa 16:01, 22 Jan 2006 (CST)

Diagnostics etc

Currently, any syntax error seems to be fatal. This is the reverse of the philosophy of both HTML and Wikitext, in which unrecognised tags are simply ignored. Diagnostics are then unnecessary.

If we must have diagnostics, they should at least be a bit more web-friendly than the current ones, which for example take no account of the screen size of the user. Andrewa 17:30, 20 Jan 2006 (CST)

Interesting; something like a mediating parser (a lilypond lint) that catches errors before they're rendered: or merely cleans up the generated error messages? Danenberg 02:09, 24 February 2006 (CST)

Syntax version

We need to baseline a version of the lilypond syntax. What I mean by this is that it's fine for lilypond to change the syntax as they evolve, as they are maintaining a batch program. They can and do simply provide conversion programs for compatibility with earlier versions of the syntax.

This approach unfortunately won't work with a big public wiki. Whenever we upgrade the MediaWiki software, it needs to be compatible with the existing files. While we could in theory run a conversion program on the entire existing database, this is a desperation move in practice even in a dictatorial commercial environment. In the environment of say Wikipedia, it just won't fly.

So, there's every chance of a fork of the lilypond syntax once it becomes an accepted part of MediaWiki, in fact IMO it's almost inevitable unless lilypond change their strategy significantly (unlikely IMO). And there's nothing wrong with this. But in view of it, we need to think hard about exactly which version of lilypond syntax we adopt and baseline. Andrewa 17:30, 20 Jan 2006 (CST)

I may be wrong about the difficulty of running a conversion program. Just the same, it's not to be taken lightly IMO; The other half is that we need to re-educate the users on the new syntax at the same time.

Lilypond copes with this with a /version command. Investigating. Andrewa 14:42, 22 Jan 2006 (CST)

Hmm, we've taken to adding that version command on the template side but may rethink that; if each user added it and LilyPond supported it, that may solve the problem. Each user has to know which version's syntax their working with, though. Danenberg 02:08, 24 February 2006 (CST)

LilyPond Server

A common problem when a wiki is hosted on a shared server is that execution of binaries is not allowed. In these cases the wikipedia lilypond extension can't be installed: no problem for the PHP part, but the core execution requires the lilypond executable.

So my question is: does it exist a "lilypond server" able to accept a http GET request, and to answer with an URL to a just-built (or cached) image ? This would enable several wikis to implement such the lilypond extension. Obviously this would require an adapted version of the PHP part for the client part.

The same concept could be probably applied to the Graph extension, and others.--Ach 18:50, 20 March 2006 (CST)

I'm afraid this is one of the most brilliant suggestions I've heard thus far; it solves at least three difficult problems:
  • Generic web-hosting
  • Windows
  • The growing complexity of installation
WikiTeX processing could be outsourced to server-farms with, say, lists of trusted IPs from whom they receive requests; the sysadmin setting up such a server farm would be comfortable with the relatively complex setup.
I'd say you've just mapped out WikiTeX 1.2!  --Danenberg 03:13, 23 March 2006 (CST)
Sob! This is my destiny: every time I ask for a solution I create a new problem.
However, I just subscribed the mailing list, to stay informed about new developments... --Ach 11:47, 23 March 2006 (CST)


Maybe it's just a temporary thing, but all the music seems to be broken (ie, showing up as raw code instead of notation) right now. -Semisomna 20:16, 16 June 2007 (CDT)