Hi Dennis, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The last time I tried it, as you may recall, the transfer of > vector images and other graphical score actions was a disaster... The limitations you mention are what I meant when I said that gaps in translation tend to be due to economics more than technology. The technology is there to fill those gaps, but nobody (yet) wants to pay the product development costs. Similarly, the technology is there for one set of programs to act upon the concepts predicated by the other. But that currently happens only to the extent that it is commercially viable. Nearly all format translations lose data to some extent due to differences between the interchange format and the native program format. Translations work best when going from one program to another at a handoff in the process (e.g. a composer using Sibelius and a publisher using Finale, or vice versa). The notation/engraving distinction is a natural handoff point and is currently used for composers using Finale and publishers using Score. Translations don't have to be lossless to be useful; they need to be good enough to make it less costly than re-entry. MusicXML meets that test very well, and the software is getting more and more accurate over time. Best reards, Michael Good Recordare LLC www.recordare.com _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
