Marc Sabatella wrote > Sorry to keep harping on this, but I want to ask again if any thought has > been given to above/below text settings. I might assume the lack of > discussion does mean we've given up on this for now, but since the code > *does* already exist, and no one has specifically said it's definitely > been decided not to roll it in, I guess I still have hope.
The main concern which has been raised about this PR is that, once implemented, it turned out to be rather invasive (39 files modified); whether it was *too* invasive is hard for me to tell, but I remember /lasconic/ telling on IRC that it looked rather scaring. Another concern I had (as being probably the only one who could test the feature rather extensively) is that, once merged, it would be rather hard to come back, should we change our mind. As the yOffset parameter (both in element data and in style parameters) should be split into new parameters yOffsetAbove and yOffsetBelow: a) scores saved with the feature enabled would not be readable without it AND b) even more important, *workspaces* saved with this feature enabled would not be readable without it a) can probably approached in some way or left on the account of unstable version vagaries; but b) would cause the program to crash at startup! > I've been exploring the text style facility of late. I am finding that > the ability to define and apply custom styles [...] So while I'd still > rather have native support, 2.0 does already provide a reasonably usable > alternative for many use cases. > > However, lyrics are still the sore point to me, because one tends to > generate so many of them and it's extremely cumbersome to select all the > ones you want flipped above the staff, especially if you've already > entered the lyrics you want to remain below. Plus the "lyric upper > margin" is still applied despite being meaningless for above staff lyrics. > So the otherwise reasonably usable alternative of defining custom text > styles isn't nearly as good for lyrics as for other text elements. And > the use case of wanting a SATB arrangement in closed score with alto & > bass lyrics below the staves, soprano and tenor above is pretty common. > > If there is any way to improve this situation for 2.0, I really think it > worthwhile. I see at least two possibilities: 1) Re-implement the above/below setting for lyrics alone; it should cover most of (probably all) the details already discussed: default above or below position, default Y offset if above, default Y value if below; for lyrics, the code should use the y offset as a distance from bottom of *lyrics* to top of *staff* when above and from bottom of *staff* to top of *lyrics* when below. A possibly cumbersome detail is that, if implemented for lyrics alone, the new parameters could not go in the "Text Style" dlg box, as this dlg box applies the same parameters to all the textual styles; they should go in the "General styles" section. 2) Re-evaluate the old branch (still available on-line here <http://github.com/mgavioli/MuseScore/compare/Placement_above_below_staff> ) and check again if it would be worth implementing, maybe applying the concept to less element types than it was originally the case. Thanks, Maurizio -- View this message in context: http://dev-list.musescore.org/Elements-below-and-above-the-staff-tp7577993p7578555.html Sent from the MuseScore Developer mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT organizations don't have a clear picture of how application performance affects their revenue. With AppDynamics, you get 100% visibility into your Java,.NET, & PHP application. Start your 15-day FREE TRIAL of AppDynamics Pro! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Mscore-developer mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mscore-developer
