Lately, I’ve been running into difficulties with page templates, specifically where parts are concerned. Anytime I create a custom template based off of the “First” page template, any changes I make are applied to the original “First” page template, too. I’m not sure why this is happening. This issue doesn’t currently occur on the score layout…I can create whatever custom templates I want and use them without incident. The link seems to persist even after adding/removing frames.
Am I just thick, or did I stumble on a glitch with the current iteration of Dorico? What am I doing wrong?
When you base a page template on another page template, all Frames that are inherited from the parent (based-on) template remain linked: altering their contents or properties will update both the new template and the parent template.
In order to break this link you must delete the relevant Frame and recreate it on the new page template.
This is by design, but it is indeed sometimes confusing.
The advantage of the linked frames is that if you have, say, a page number in the same place on every template, and your publisher wants you to move that page number, you only have to do it once. It would be frustrating if that functionality were to be taken away.
The idea of the “based on” page templates is that you reuse any Frames that do need to remain constant across the templates, and build new Frames where you need differences.
One will also find that, by examining the frame data in the Properties panel and jotting down a few notes, one can recreate a new frame with matching dimensions by the numbers.
It’s useful if you want a new template to keep certain frames from the original; for example: a custom first page template with no music frame (when the music needs to start on a left page).
I did know about breaking the link by deleting/re-creating frames, but as I’d mentioned, the quirk was 1) only happening with the part layout (not the score), and 2) still persisted after removing/re-adding frames.
Re-installing Dorico fixed the issue. I’ll tell you, though, if there’s even the remotest of chances I could break something, I’ll somehow stumble right into it.
What surprises me most is the fact that only the parts template collection has that (normal?) behavior.
Modifying stuff in frames shared by multiple templates (based on) should result in modifying all those parented templates, no matter whether parts or score
I have to admit that I’m having a bit of difficulty understanding this logic myself, given that the result is two identical page templates.
Wouldn’t it be simpler to change the default model? The new one would then seem completely useless.
But there you go…
If what you want is a completely different template, create a new template that isn’t based on an existing template.
If you want a template that’s similar to an existing template, e.g. a title page that has all the title/composer/lyricist info but no music frame, as suggested above, or a slightly larger frame for the layout name for a particularly lengthy layout, or… then create a template that’s based on an existing one, delete the frame that needs not to be identical and recreate it.
Yes, of course, @pianoleo, but it is often very time-consuming.
Yes, yes. I understand that.
What I don’t understand is the relevance of the link created in this case between the two models… I don’t think it’s very user-friendly, but it doesn’t matter. You don’t have to turn your head upside down to explain it all to me.
You need a variant of the Default page template, with eg a shorter music frame and a graphic frame at the bottom for a publisher’s logo. You use this page template on the final page in layouts.
Then, the publisher says: can you change the running header please, we also need to show the composer’s name there.
You add the composer token to the running header on the Default page template. Because your custom “final page” template is linked, the running header there also updates.
One change: all pages consistent.
Linked frames is one of a few areas that we know users would like to have clearer indications about, another being voice-specific dynamics, for example. It’s something we hope to look at one day, but we couldn’t say when that might be.
I thank you very much, Ms Harris for this detailed answer, which I’ll try to assimilate.
I’d like to make a suggestion for future versions of Dorico (if it’s not absurd): add a small tick box (linked/unlinked e.g) in the dialogue box so that we don’t have to create or delete a frame to get a stand-alone model (which isn’t very practical); that way we’d have both options available.
