On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 02:07:35PM -0800, Mark Polesky wrote: > I'm intentionally making a big deal out of this because this > is the text on page 2 of the manual, and disingenuous claims > are off-putting to new users. We're trying to "sell" a > product, but our pitch is unconvincing and maybe a little > suspicious.
Thanks for looking into this. My initial thought is that we should print out our flat (at 4800dpi or whatever), then scan that printout. This would avoid any pdf->png confusion, as well as presenting a more unified comparison. (well, it would if we could print it on the same paper as the Henle and Barenreiter flats used) However -- and I really hate asking people to delay things when they're enthusiastic -- could you wait a few weeks until GOP starts? With Christmas and preparing for 2.12, this isn't the best of times to fiddle with such details. In addition, the entire Engraving essay will be removed from the LM, put somewhere else, and quite possibly be rewritten from scratch as part of GOP. (that said, we will probably retain the comparison of flats, so perhaps there's no point waiting before producing the scans) Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
