Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Preserve in the MEI output attribute values non supported #3114

Open
rettinghaus opened this issue Nov 11, 2022 · 4 comments
Open

Preserve in the MEI output attribute values non supported #3114

rettinghaus opened this issue Nov 11, 2022 · 4 comments
Assignees

Comments

@rettinghaus
Copy link
Contributor

Verovio loses units it cannot process. Better would be to store them anyway and just throw a warning.

When you load something like

<graphic xml:id="anid" width="2000px" height="3000px" target="https://some.url" />

Verovio reports a "Unsupported virtual unit value" and exports

<graphic xml:id="anid" target="https://some.url" />

@rettinghaus rettinghaus added the bug For issues describing crashes or unexpected behaviour label Nov 12, 2022
@lpugin lpugin added enhancement and removed bug For issues describing crashes or unexpected behaviour labels Nov 14, 2022
@lpugin
Copy link
Contributor

lpugin commented Nov 14, 2022

This should be improved in a generic manner. What we can do is have new AttCache class inheriting from Att from which selected attribute can inherit (instead for Att). Which one to cache would be set in the libMEI configuration. These attribute would cache the original value which will be used when writing the attribute.

We need an additional virtual method Att::HasCacheValue() with would return false in Att but would be overwritten in AttCache. Then in methods writing attribute we would also check for the presence of a cached value.

@lpugin lpugin changed the title Non-vu units get lost Preserve in the MEI output attribute values non supported Nov 15, 2022
@lpugin
Copy link
Contributor

lpugin commented Dec 27, 2024

@rettinghaus are you willing to implement this? Otherwise I would put it in the back burner list.

@rettinghaus
Copy link
Contributor Author

I'll have a look.

@rettinghaus rettinghaus self-assigned this Dec 27, 2024
@lpugin
Copy link
Contributor

lpugin commented Dec 27, 2024

Great. I think it should be pretty straightforward.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants