Am 2018-07-27 um 12:25 schrieb Torsten Hämmerle <torsten.haemme...@web.de>:
> A general problem I see with SMuFL fonts is that LilyPond has a different > philosophy: LilyPond will re-use (and eventually scale) existing glyphs, > whereas SMuFL is terribly redundant, endlessly reduplicating certain glyphs. > > Example: the numerals 0123456789 in LilyPond are used for fingering, string > numbers, volta numbers, figured bass, even time signatures and may other > purposes. > In SMuFL, there will be many different versions of these numerals in > slightly different sizes (or even exact duplicates): every single purpose > you could think of will get its own private "2". This should be no problem, since OpenType supports references, also moved and AFAIK even scaled ones. LilyPond’s fonts could deliver all those redundant code points with a single glyph. > Furthermore, LilyPond will build up many markups by combing several glyphs, > e.g. > "8va" will be a combination of "8", "v", and "a", whereas SMuFL will have > one single special glyph for "8va", there are tons of examples. Also combinations are supported by OpenType, think of accented characters and ligatures. Greetlings, Hraban --- fiëé visuëlle Henning Hraban Ramm https://www.fiee.net _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
