> You mean https://mail.gna.org/public/gregorio-users/2013-07/msg00026.html ?
Indeed > I haven't until now, the modern one looks very nice and contains lots of > glyphs, though various needed are still missing (e.g. in author's naming > terminology distrol, bivirl, virstre, the two special forms of pes quassus > which look like pes quadratus (and pes quadratus liquescens) with oriscus > attached to it (pq5 and pq6 shapes in my font), I miss one liquescens clivis > shape (cl11 shape in my font), various pressus shapes (melody alt form with > ~ gravis instead of punctum for both maior and minor, liquescens forms for > both minor and maior), some torculus modifications of shape, perhaps > scandicus with three punctis (virga pretripunctis, scpppv ?), various > salicus forms, trigonus alt form (tg2), two trigonus modifications of the > mark (ones I haven't found either), trigonus melody modified, and all the > letter significativa (even in modern look form using just ordinary > contemporary alphabetic font is going to look weird, especially if some > letters in manuscripts were written differently (e.g. s) and various > sequences had special glyphs (e.g. statim vs. sursum tenere). If the font > has say all the 40+ alphabetic signs (some of them can be constructed by > just combining, but lots of them can't), then perhaps the font should also > contain the most common letter adjuncted neumes (I mean the celeriter, > tenete, tenete + episema, celeriter + tenete, expectare and frendor > adjuncted neumes at least from Cardine's table). Is there a newer version > of the modern (or ancient) font? No, that's all there is for the modern font, Sr Maria started to improve the ancient font (which most people seemed to prefer), but I'm not sure she had a lot of time... > The old style looks also nice, but at least the version you've posted > didn't contain too many glyphs, my shapes are not as clean as in that font, > but the intent was similar, to have an ancient style looking font. Ok good! These are released under the OFL, so if you release yours too, you can take glyphs from them! They're here for that... The idea of having several free fonts is to make them improve with each other... what do you think? > Perhaps it is different page in the French original? I've been using (well, > just in the last 14 days of the evening work) the English translation, > before that just Graduale Triplex and the manuscripts (plus occassional > look at Antiphonale Monasticum, Nocturnale Romanum, Offertoriale Triplex), > and the lettera significativa often with help of a diploma thesis (in czech) > I found at http://theses.cz/id/9b10pv/96548-338988687.pdf (pp141-142). Thanks for the link, though Czech is Czech to me :) A very good resource is also an italian book, I'll send you a few scans I have, though I cannot find the name of the book... > http://scripts.sil.org/OFL_web ? Yes > No problem. Great! > I'm not very proficient with TeX, if the font doesn't have kerning info, > where would the kerning info come from? Knowledge embedded in the gregorio > program, the LuaTeX style, some lua script, elsewhere? I mean if e.g. in > the same neumatic group there is a virga followed by e.g. porrectus with > episema, the virga as well as start of porrectus have similar tilt and in > the manuscripts seems to be very close to each other. It will be in the LuaTeX script yes. But thinking back about this, it might be good to have the most common kernings too. Let's take an example: if you have in nabc text1(square1$ancient1$square2$ancient2) LuaTeX will align square1 with ancient1 and square2 with ancient2, will typeset square1 and square2, but it would be easier if the treatment of ancient1 and ancient2 was quite easy, meaning basically just putting the glyphs of the font, and let the font do the kernings... So in a way, it would be good to have at least the most common kernings... > Using the font outside of TeX/Gregorio is not my immediate priority, so if > it would involve lots of work that TeX/Gregorio couldn't use, perhaps better > would be spend my time on improving the shapes, filling the missing > characters, perhaps eventually Laon. Ok > Because pretty much all pressus glyphs (with the exception of pressus maior > with episema (and episema and celeriter) are there both for maior and minor, > instead of saying for pressus minor it is alternate form in all cases it is > IMHO better to say which pressus you mean, after all, the glyphs are very > different (pressus maior virga + oriscus + punctum, pressus minor just > oriscus + punctum). Similarly for quilismas (in the modern font above > the author also uses everywhere ql2 vs. ql3 in the names). Well, this seems a good enough reason, do not hesitate to modify the wiki page with this change! Thank you very much, -- Elie _______________________________________________ Gregorio-users mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/gregorio-users
