On 21 Dec 2005 at 23:22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Wednesday, December 21, 2005, at 10:23PM, Chuck Israels > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Is it a practical idea to link only some elements? > > In reading another thread about parts extraction, it seems that linked > parts (if ever implemented) would *have* to link only some of the > elements.
Well, I disagree. It would definitely want aspects of layout and appearance to be unlinked, but I don't see that there's much in the form of data that would not be fully linked (though invisible in some views and visible in others). > >Entries, inserted > >or deleted portions? > > Well, it seems like things like the title, composer (etc.) *wouldn't* > be good things to link, since they vary so widely between the main > score and parts (and, apparently, between different parts). Link them and allow the potential for layout and font sizes to differ between the two. Consider how MS Word implements cascading style: you have a default Normal style, says Times 12pt. You base your Header 1 on Normal, but add bold and change the size to 16pt. That's stored like this: Normal Times 12pt Header1 Normal + 16pt + bold If you change the font of Normal, Header1 inherits it. Thus, the Header1 definition is defined as a delta from the base style. There is absolutely no reason why text blocks could not be defined in exactly this fashion, and when you altered the definition of a text block (either font or layout), you'd be given the choice of whether it applies only to the current view or to both views. >From a conceptual point of view, it is not complicated -- it would all be stored as an additional record in the underlying database. > What if the design of the linked parts feature had a dialog (of some > sort) that had checkboxes where you could select the elements to link? > ... Um, well, D'OH!!!! Of course it would have to be implemented this way. All discussions of this subject from long before Sibelius implemented have described exactly that kind of interface to allow independent control of layout between views. > Alternately, perhaps the parts could initially have all the elements > of the main score, but as you modified elements (like title, text > boxes, etc.) in the parts, it would break the link for that particular > element ...? Or allow you to do that, or not, depending on what you chose as your default settings and exactly how you went about it. Sort of similar to the way expressions are note or measure expressions depending on how you have your defaults set and how you enter them. > Maybe, when you modify the title (etc.) in the first part you "visit," > Finale could mirror those changes in other parts that you haven't > "visited" yet (without changing the main score). (It would seem that > the individual parts might share more in common with each other than > they do with the man score ... at least in the area of layout, etc.) Well, there would be things that apply to the score, things that apply to all parts and things that apply only to a single part (or a designated group of parts). This would not be dissimilar to the way staff lists for expressions already work, where you control which staves expressions appear in in the score and the parts. > One "element" you would probably want to keep "linked" would be the > actual notes (entries, rests, etc.) ... so that if you fix a > typo/wrong note in the main score (or in one of the parts), it would > be reflected in the part (or in the man score). That's data, and not layout, so, yes, that would have to be linked. For cues, you'd simply have an appearance definition which would hide it in the score, not unlike a staff style (staff styles could potentially be made to apply to score view or part view, or both). > Maybe, when editing a part, if you modified an "always linked" element > instance (like a pitch)--and didn't want the change to be reflected in > the main score--you could right/cmd-click the element and tell Finale > to break (un-break if you changed your mind) the link. That could be done, but is much more complicated than changing layout elements. If you delete an item from one view, that's one thing, since it's basically just hiding it, but if you changed its actual data value, that's another issue entirely. I guess, again, it could still be stored as a delta from the base data (which, I think, would always be the score itself). > I have seen a number of word-processing applications (the old > WordPerfect application comes to mind, with its "reveal-codes" that > everyone made fun of) that have different "document views" of the same > data stream. Terrible example, as WP gave you the worst of all possible worlds, a "WYSYWIG" view that had dead space in it because of non-displaying formatting codes, but really unreliable entry and editing of those codes. > It seems reasonable to me that linking *some* elements between score > and parts could be a very good thing. > > Just a stream of consciousness on a Wednesday before Christmas ... This has already been discussed at great length on this list. I would bet good money that the designers of Sibelius's linked parts benefited significantlly from that discussion on this list, since the result is pretty much what was discussed here. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
