On Fri, 2015-05-29 at 10:29 +0200, Urs Liska wrote: > > > Am 29.05.2015 um 10:13 schrieb Richard Shann: > > > On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 21:16 +0200, Jacques Menu wrote: > > > Hello Richard, > > > > > > Find attached what I get after raw import of the XML file into Sibelius > > > 7.1.3 and then export as PDF. > > > > > > It seems there’s no difference with what you got from IMSLP. > > > > > > JM > > > > Well, again I couldn't view this in Evince but I could open it with > > Iceweasel, and it shows something interesting: in bar 13 the original > > has a cautionary accidental in parentheses. > > > > Denemo's MusicXML import ignores this field (yes! I've submitted a bug > > report for this) so I have inserted it manually, getting the attached > > typeset LilyPondBar13.png. > > > > The hand-written Sibelius output was particularly bad for this (see > > SibeliusHandGenerated.ly), while Sibelius's MusicXML import, like > > Denemo's, ignored the cautionary attribute when re-importing its own > > MusicXML (see SibeliusImportedFromMusicXML.png attached - this has been > > snipped from your file). > > > > Reading this mailing list gave me the impression that Sibelius was a > > required format for some publishing houses. > > This is correct. From my own experience and comments by others most > (major) publishers require you to submit one of the following:; > - Finale files > - Sibelius files > - SCORE files > - ((((PDF)))) > > > How can this be? > > Good question. > Has to be put also the other way round: How can it be that practically > noone accepts LilyPond yet? It can't be the text approach alone, > otherwise they wouldn't use SCORE (and sometimes even Amadeus which is > very similar to LilyPond in a way).
I think the answer may be that they re-typeset everything in-house, so even a manuscript is acceptable. Have you ever had a chance to ask them? Richard _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
