On 06 Jul 2005, at 12:19 PM, Andrew Stiller wrote:
On Jul 6, 2005, at 2:58 AM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
. Let's see if we can flesh something out on-list before submitting.
• First, Special Part Extraction would need to be revamped to be able
to save independent an layout for each staff....
Of all the long list of proposed features that follows, I'm not at all
sure I feel a need for *any* of them. Darcy is asking for a
profusion of new dialog boxes and windows, whereas I would have
thought it obvious that any dynamic parts linking should be
transparent: I change the score, the change is automatically (after
signing off on an alert box) conveyed to the parts. Period.
And as I wrote in a separate post, even that would be much less
useful to me than the reverse: change a part and have it
automatically (after an alert box) affect the score.
I thought everyone understood that this was implicit in the idea of
Dynamic Parts.
The proposed features that follow are, to me, essential if the feature
is to be actually useful. If you can't specify a separate page format
for the parts, or you can't specify a different font size and
positioning for text blocks in the parts than in the score, or you
can't include cue notes in the parts but not the score, or you can't
change the positioning of dynamics in the parts but not the score, then
Dynamic Parts becomes much less useful.
- Darcy
-----
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
