Am 26.11.2013 11:31, schrieb Jan Nieuwenhuizen: >> Sure. For that reason, I consider much of the time spent on tweaking >> > and tweaking tools a waste of lifetime better spent on trying to get the >> > automatisms right. Of course, that option is harder and requires >> > different resources. But it only needs to be done once. > Yes, although doing manual tweaks once or twice gives you a good feel > for how much work it is, how necessary the tweaks are for publication, > what the new automations should produce and what priorities you would > pick for automating these tweaks. IMHO the chances to reduce the number of necessary tweaks for a publication-ready score to zero are near zero, looking at the diversity of musical scores. So, (still IMHO) one should still spend hours to reduce the number of necessary tweaks. But we should also work on good interfaces for tweaking the engraving *and* on interfaces to separate content and design. In my former answer to Urs' post, I talked about the engraver I use. Here's the idea behind it again: - I have my music stored, to recall it when I actually engrave it. - I want to be able to say: Modify item x in measure n on moment m with modification (override) d
That way I am able to tweak the full score and the instrument or vocal parts differently without any - probably tagged - override in the content file. And I can use the content for any paper size and layout again, without any overrides in the content. What do you think about it? Best, Jan-Peter _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
