Comment #23 on issue 1752 by carl.d.s...@gmail.com: redesigning G clef in
our Feta font
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1752
It seems to me that we do not have agreement for having an override for the
clef. As far as I can see, there are those who prefer the old clef, and
those who prefer the new clef.
Han-Wen is ready to move to the new clef. Xavier is ready to have the new
clef if the majority want it, even though he likes the old clef better.
James doesn't want to move away from the old clef. Graham wants to avoid
the new clef since it would be a Critical Regression.
In order to address the difference of opinion, we have two proposals. The
first is to allow an override to switch the glyphs. Trevor is strongly
against it; it would lead to a multiplicity of overrides. The second is to
create a new font with the new glyph. But this is waiting on developing a
new architecture for handling music fonts.
So how to resolve this and move forward?
My personal opinion is that the proper way to handle this is to develop the
new architecture, then move forward with a different font. But nobody is
working on that, so we're stuck.
Absent the new architecture, my recommendation is to wait on this patch
until 2.16 is out, and then apply the patch *without* the override
capability to 2.17. This can then create a critical regression in 2.17
that would need to be solved by the font changing architecture before 2.18
is released.
I am *not* in favor of including the clef style override in lilypond --
it's a hack that is not extensible and not maintainable in the long term.
Thanks,
Carl
_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
