Le 11/06/2015 04:32, Henry So Jr. a écrit : > I know I'm replying essentially to myself again, but... > > On Wednesday, 10 June 2015 at 09:58:12 pm -0400, Henry So Jr. wrote: >> On Wednesday, 10 June 2015 at 05:01:48 pm -0400, Henry So Jr. wrote: >> .... In addition, we should >> adopt the new oriscus deminutus into the greciliae, with the caeciliae >> shape as alternative.... > > I've changed my mind on this particular point. Unless the oriscus > figure is changed as well, the oriscus deminutus looks too out of place > to me, so I don't think substituting this glyph alone is a good default. > > However, feel free to shoot my opinion down. I don't claim to be > particularly artistic.
My opinion is more technical: building another font is, in my opinion, opening the door to an expotential number of fonts in the future, if oriscus1 and oriscus2 appear, then when someone will want quilisma1 and quilisma2, this will make oriscus1quilisma1 oriscus2quilisma1 oriscus1quilisma2 oriscus2quilisma2 etc. So I strongly encouage users to give their opinion, so that one shape is chosen for Greciliae (at least for oriscus, the standalone glyphs are less important. Thank you, -- Elie _______________________________________________ Gregorio-users mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/gregorio-users
