To allow tailorizing the title text block (the initial vertical text block) it would be nice to be able to use the same macros as those used in the header and footer functionality.
That would indeed be nice, and ISTR it had been discussed and/or requested before, but can't find it.
It won't make it into 2.1 though I guess, as it'd most probably introduce backward coamptibility issues
Please expand in the backward compatibiluty issue you see. If you use the same layout as is but replace the current text with the tags then most people will never notice...
People can stilledit the text block and replace the tag with any text they prefer (like it is now) without any influence in the properties.
The ony difference in behaviour would be that if the properties are changed, the text block(s) change with it, provided the tag hasn't been changed in text in the text block.
I would think this is expected behaviour for most people.
Those tags would need to be stored in the score file on save and getting interpreted on score load. The latter would fail on older versions and show the marco itself rather than its replacement. Like the Title in a title frame would then suddenly read "$:workTitle:", i.e. not exapanded to what is set to in score properties and that the new version shows, that knows how that and how to expand it.
Maybe we can live with this, maybe not, I'm not sure. But in general 2.1 is supposed to get only (or at least mainly) bug fixes. New features only if they are easy enough to not potentially cause new issues and are backward compatible.
Your #163911: Add score-properties to create-new-score wizard for example might qualify.
An example we we broke backwards compatibility is crescendo lines, older version don't have them. But they show them as regular hairpins, so no information is lost at least
I tested what happens when an "unknown" MetaTag is reverenced. It seems that at this moment the reference is completely ignored, so the Score is still displayed correctly, and the new data is just ignored.
I think this is fully acceptable (otherwise it is nearly impossible to introduce anything new, right?).
Comments
That would indeed be nice, and ISTR it had been discussed and/or requested before, but can't find it.
It won't make it into 2.1 though I guess, as it'd most probably introduce backward coamptibility issues
Please expand in the backward compatibiluty issue you see. If you use the same layout as is but replace the current text with the tags then most people will never notice...
People can stilledit the text block and replace the tag with any text they prefer (like it is now) without any influence in the properties.
The ony difference in behaviour would be that if the properties are changed, the text block(s) change with it, provided the tag hasn't been changed in text in the text block.
I would think this is expected behaviour for most people.
Those tags would need to be stored in the score file on save and getting interpreted on score load. The latter would fail on older versions and show the marco itself rather than its replacement. Like the Title in a title frame would then suddenly read "$:workTitle:", i.e. not exapanded to what is set to in score properties and that the new version shows, that knows how that and how to expand it.
Maybe we can live with this, maybe not, I'm not sure. But in general 2.1 is supposed to get only (or at least mainly) bug fixes. New features only if they are easy enough to not potentially cause new issues and are backward compatible.
Your #163911: Add score-properties to create-new-score wizard for example might qualify.
An example we we broke backwards compatibility is crescendo lines, older version don't have them. But they show them as regular hairpins, so no information is lost at least
Ahh, you're right! on't see an easy way around this.
In reply to #3 by Jojo-Schmitz
I tested what happens when an "unknown" MetaTag is reverenced. It seems that at this moment the reference is completely ignored, so the Score is still displayed correctly, and the new data is just ignored.
I think this is fully acceptable (otherwise it is nearly impossible to introduce anything new, right?).