[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 3.0?
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: 3.0? |
Date: |
Thu, 09 Jan 2014 21:05:45 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) |
Joseph Rushton Wakeling <address@hidden> writes:
> On 09/01/14 12:20, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Another problem is that LilyPond has a usage philosophy and workflow
>> that strongly penalizes manual tweaks. Graphically/manually oriented
>> workflows detract from the importance of getting good default
>> typesetting.
>
> I'm not sure that's necessarily the case. Making it easy to
> experiment with manual tweaks could be a very good way of working out
> how things need to be engraved, and thus provide guidance for better
> automated typesetting.
That must be the reason why the typical Word document features the
consistent use of document styles for arriving at typographically
superior results.
--
David Kastrup
- Re: 3.0?, (continued)
- Re: 3.0?, Urs Liska, 2014/01/11
- Re: 3.0?, Paul Morris, 2014/01/11
- Re: 3.0?, Carl Peterson, 2014/01/12
- Re: 3.0?, Janek WarchoĊ, 2014/01/12
- Re: 3.0?, David Kastrup, 2014/01/12
- Re: 3.0?, Urs Liska, 2014/01/12
- Re: 3.0?, Joseph Rushton Wakeling, 2014/01/09
- Re: 3.0?,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: 3.0?, Urs Liska, 2014/01/09
- Re: 3.0?, Joseph Rushton Wakeling, 2014/01/09
- Re: 3.0?, SoundsFromSound, 2014/01/09
- Re: 3.0?, Carl Sorensen, 2014/01/10
Re: 3.0?, Phil Holmes, 2014/01/09
Re: 3.0?, David Kastrup, 2014/01/09