So Dorico does a fantastic job of Combining tied notes and rests automagically.
but I have noticed maybe the addition of proofreading in future versions wouldn’t be a bad idea.
Things Like Checking for Combined Tied notes and rest to make sure everything seems tidy and nice.
Checking for duplicated dynamics beside each other or checking for multi stops
These features would be a great addition to the product. Alternatively, if the team can deliver robust scripting capabilities, the community can contribute tools like these and much more.
Exactly and I think Sibelius used to have this and users created plugins for it
to be honest, I don’t understand this request. If I look at the example screenshots, is this something, you input via Dorico?
What exactly does the “rest” example try to show? Are they forced rests?
Why don’t you like the violin chord?
Besides this, doesn’t Dorico have scripting capabilities?
The rest might be forced rests that I accidentally put in which It would be nice if dorico can warn me about it in the proofreading stage so I can fix that or dorico can fix that for me.
The violin chords are multi-stops. Sibelius had this plugin that could help user to check if they are playable and how easy or hard they are for string players
It’s really easy to have an incomplete bar in Dorico, if you modify a meter after there are existing meter changes later on in the project. I’d love a proofreading tool, whether it’s a signpost or something else, to notify the user of any incomplete bars, so I wouldn’t have to proof for things like this:
Finale’s “Check Region for Durations” plug-in was an essential part of my proofing workflow in Finale.
Yes But for now when you enter a meter If I am not mistaken choose “insert mode” first (Shorcut is I) and then add your new meter to avoid this kinda situations.
Yes, there are (were?) many proofreading tools in Sibelius that are great, and I even commissioned private ones that help me a lot, which I certainly miss in Dorico. Hopefully, a full script API is released soon in Dorico so clever users can write such scripts.
Redundancy is no problem in Dorico (and is perhaps, in some situations, required);
I think it’s safe to say that DS knows all about this from his past at Avid, but proofing functions might be at lower priority right now. Script API however I think should be a top priority.
nice one, I also remember I used to run “remove Dangling ties” to check for any unwanted ties that I accidentally put too.
Because you have to enable something else first is exactly why there needs to be a proofreading tool for this. I also disabled the “I” shortcut so I could never enter Insert Mode by accident as it is potentially so destructive. I made it so I have to literally click on the Insert icon to enter Insert.
Dorico can’t have a dangling tie (of the Finale/Sibelius type). There is an l.v. tie, but I don’t think a script can tell where those do and don’t belong.
True, but it would be good to get a “log” with all occurrences listed. They appear frequently when importing MXML.
A basic difference between Dorico and it’s predecessors or “competitors”: Dorico assumes, the user knows, what he/she/it wants. As a user you get the ability but also the responsibility. That’s why these proofreading “tools” don’t really make sense.
Because everything you put in, makes sense right from the beginning. F.e. locked rests don’t turn up by themselves, you have put them in with intention. That’s why there is nothing “to clean up”.
You are absolutely right. But I can see why it could still be very useful : importing xmls without unticking everything in the Preferences page leaves many many strange things on the page that one would want to get rid of — of course, unticking everything should be the answer… 
I strongly disagree. You argue from the point of a composer that inputs at your own pace, at your own time and leisure. Now, let’s assume you are a publisher (or a copyist) that gets 100 scores from “various ‘other’ programs” via MXML. What do you do, proofing 500+ pages, efficiently? In Sib I have scripts that proofread tempo texts (and much more), I never have to read these things in detail. It’s done in seconds instead of hours (or days).
I guess, publishers get scores as music.xml and as accompanying.pdf files (or the other way round). Can music.xml files generated from within Dorico can be that messy, that they don’t match the .pdf version? Somehow I doubt this. The mentioned tools are valuable, but not necessarily in Dorico’s orbit.
*user overrides dorico defaults
*user then wants dorico to warn him he did something on purpose but it might be wrong
I can’t possibly fathom how this could go wrong or annoy people. 
Nothing gonna go wrong if dorico
Let us know only upon request only
A new section calls “proof read” in which users can check the entire score for things that I and few others mentioned
I definitely agree about the duplicated dynamics-especially with hairpins. Dorico has a tendency to create duplicates when editing dynamics and they can be stacked on top of each other on the score and then visible in parts. This can be easy to miss. I’d love for there to be an option to show you all duplicates-similar to how Cubase has the PLE and the MLE.
I certainly understand and I wouldn’t mind seeing such a feature developed. But I do doubt whether or not dorico should bring up all the times you invoke force duration. By its very nature an override implies that you know you are breaking the mold, ergo, it’s what you definitely want. Such cases fall squarely on the users, and there needs to be some accountability there.
But as always, I’ll apply my general rule: I am always happy to be proven wrong by the dev team. If they can figure out a smart way to do it that makes sense and is helpful—even when dealing with manual overrides—then more power to them!
