Re: OT Micro$oft Word [was: Re: [Finale] OT A brief heads-up]

[David W. Fenton]

On 16 Sep 2007 at 5:45, Dennis W. Manasco wrote:

> At 1:40 PM -0400 9/14/07, David W. Fenton wrote:
> 
> >  > It's not about "converters."
> >>
> >>  It's about assured, accurate and complete readability of the original 
> >> files.
> >
> >Then that criticism applies the the Microsoft Word *.doc format more
> >than it does to *.docx,
> 
> Yes.

Thus, in the original context, you should have called the preference 
for doc over docx a stupid difference that makes no difference.

> But, though many use .doc, .docx was proposed as an ISO standard.

This is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the context in which I made the 
comment about converters.

> The difference is conceptional:
> 
> .doc is a common interchange format, but it relies on Microsoft's 
> decoding of a proprietary format.
> 
> .doc has become a user-standard because of its ubiquitousness, but it 
> cannot be an international-standard because elements of its structure 
> are hidden.
> 
> Thus .doc is _not_ a standard, just a widely used format.

And it's what the journals are choosing for submissions in preference 
to docx, despite the fact that there is really no difference between 
the two in regard to the criticisms you are levelling (none of which 
I dispute).

The point is:

You're missing the point of the discussion in which I made the 
comment that you responded to so forcefully.

> >  since *.docx is an XML-based (i.e., plain-text) format, so it's 
> >more accessible than a binary format like *.doc
> 
> Yes.
> 
> It is more _readable_, but that does not mean that it is more _translatable_.
> 
> The whole question revolves around translation.
> 
> Physical readability is superfluous and assumed.
> 
> Programmatic readability is trivial.
> 
> Translatability is the problem.
> 
> Without a clear, complete and total description of the data 
> structures, published in the public domain, no independent program 
> can hope to adequately and completely translate the data.

Is there not a DTD for the docx XML format? If not, yes, that's a 
problem. But if there is, then there is no issue whatsoever about its 
accessibility or interpretation, as the DTD is axiomatically a 
declaration of exactly how the XML structures are to be interpreted.

> >I thought the point was that MS's old format was OK, but the new 
> >format was not
> 
> No.

To the people who were saying "don't send us documents in docx 
format" it was definitely the case that they said "instead use the 
old doc format," so when you say NO to my question, I believe you 
are, quite transparently, completely mistaken.

> The old format (.doc) was not fully documented in the public domain.

As I said, you're onto a completely different context than the one in 
which I made my statement about converters.

Which is fine.

But it doesn't help to not make it clear that you're going off on a 
tangent.

[]

> >And the alternative format that publications are using (*.doc) is 
> >not even close to being public
> 
> I'd like to see a list of publications that are sending .doc to their 
> printers.

You are the one who is imagining that this is the case. Most 
scholarly journals that I know of accept article submissions in doc 
format. It is not camera-ready copy, but data that they can read and 
take into whatever publishing system they use.

For that purpose, I really see no difference between doc and docx, 
except that there's the minor issue of needing to acquire the docx 
converters.

It has *zilch* to do with long-term data storage, nor anything at all 
to do with formats for printing.

> I don't know of any magazines that are using anything other than PDF 
> with their printers.

And this is simply not relevant to the original context, which was 
what my comment applied to. You are now in a completely different 
context.

> Whether they are letting individual correspondents send their stories 
> in in .doc is pretty irrelevant.
> 
> >The *.docx format serves a completely different purpose than PDF
> 
> That is not my interpretation of Microsoft's repeated assertions.

MS has a completely different portable document format whose name I 
forget. Docx is not a page description format, but a data storage 
format.

At least, that's my understanding.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates   http://dfenton.com/DFA/


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Staff names

[jarmstro]

Thanks. That worked well. 

John Armstrong
University of Ottawa
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Check out my web page at !

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Christopher Smith wrote:

> 
> On Sep 15, 2007, at 3:59 PM, Aaron Sherber wrote:
> 
> > At 02:10 PM 9/15/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >Does anyone know if there's a way to change an abbreviated staff  
> > name for
> > >a single system.  
> >
> > Use a staff style with the changed abbreviated staff name.
> >
> And assign it to a metatool so that you can assign it with one click  
> anywhere you need it.
> 
> Christopher
> 
> 
> ___
> Finale mailing list
> Finale@shsu.edu
> http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
> 

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

[Finale] FinMac2008 - duplicate expressions bug

[Darcy James Argue]

In FinMac2008, in the Expression Selection dialog box, clicking  
"Duplicate" creates TWO duplicate copies.


Cheers,

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY



___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Select partial measures

[Haroldo Mauro Jr.]

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: OT Micro$oft Word [was: Re: [Finale] OT A brief heads-up]

[Dennis W. Manasco]

At 1:40 PM -0400 9/14/07, David W. Fenton wrote:


 > It's not about "converters."


 It's about assured, accurate and complete readability of the original files.


Then that criticism applies the the Microsoft Word *.doc format more
than it does to *.docx,


Yes.

But, though many use .doc, .docx was proposed as an ISO standard.

The difference is conceptional:

.doc is a common interchange format, but it relies on Microsoft's 
decoding of a proprietary format.


.doc has become a user-standard because of its ubiquitousness, but it 
cannot be an international-standard because elements of its structure 
are hidden.


Thus .doc is _not_ a standard, just a widely used format.

 since *.docx is an XML-based (i.e., plain-text) format, so it's 
more accessible than a binary format like *.doc


Yes.

It is more _readable_, but that does not mean that it is more _translatable_.

The whole question revolves around translation.

Physical readability is superfluous and assumed.

Programmatic readability is trivial.

Translatability is the problem.

Without a clear, complete and total description of the data 
structures, published in the public domain, no independent program 
can hope to adequately and completely translate the data.


I thought the point was that MS's old format was OK, but the new 
format was not


No.

The old format (.doc) was not fully documented in the public domain.

As such it could never be an international standard -- No matter how 
may people used it there was no guarantee that it could be read and 
properly reproduced in the future; its translation depended on 
Microsoft's software, or other's incomplete guesses.


Microsoft proposed .docx as a standard, but did not fully and 
completely reveal its internal structure in their proposal (as 
determined by ISO and many others).


That means that .docx cannot (in ISO's opinion) be fully, completely 
and totally interpreted and reproduced by others.


Thus it cannot be an international standard:

It has been deemed, by definition, _proprietary_ and unacceptable as 
a standard.


And the alternative format that publications are using (*.doc) is 
not even close to being public


I'd like to see a list of publications that are sending .doc to their printers.

I don't know of any magazines that are using anything other than PDF 
with their printers.


Whether they are letting individual correspondents send their stories 
in in .doc is pretty irrelevant.



The *.docx format serves a completely different purpose than PDF


That is not my interpretation of Microsoft's repeated assertions.


-=-Dennis



















.
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Bar lines

[Raimund Lintzen]

Dean,

try removing the optimization from the staves

and change again the barline setting.

Otherwise you have to do it seperatly for each accolade.

Raimund Lintzen



"Dean M. Estabrook" schrieb:
> 
> I have a choral score which has Sop 1, Sop 11, etc. through Bass 1
> and Bass 11. In the upper three staff groups, the bar lines appear
> only on individual staves, not through both staves.  In the B 1/ B11
> staves, however, they do go through both staves. I went into the
> Group Attributes dialog box and deselected "through" and opted for
> "Single staffs" for the bar lines, but could not get it to change to
> single staff bar lines. Any thoughts? Yes, I was in page view, if
> that matters.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Dean
> 
> Dean M. Estabrook
> http://deanestabrook.googlepages.com/home
> 
>  Why do they sterilize the needle for lethal injections?
> 
> ___
> Finale mailing list
> Finale@shsu.edu
> http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale