Am 1. April 2019 20:07:47 MESZ schrieb Malte Meyn <lilyp...@maltemeyn.de>: > > >Am 01.04.19 um 12:01 schrieb Johan Vromans: >> On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 09:17:26 +0200, Malte Meyn <lilyp...@maltemeyn.de> >wrote: >> >>> SMuFL integration and using Metafont for glyph creation don’t >>> contradict, do they? >> >> They do, in so far that with limited resources you cannot do both. > >[sending on-list, sorry Johan for the double post] > >What do you mean by “limited resources”? A lack of manpower? I don’t >think it’s a real problem: > >“In order for a font to be considered SMuFL-compliant, it should >implement as many of the recommended characters as are appropriate for >the intended use of the font, at the specified code points. Fonts need >not implement every recommended character, and need not implement any >optional glyphs, in order to be considered SMuFL-compliant.” (SMuFL >specification >https://w3c.github.io/smufl/gitbook/about/recommended-chars-optional-glyphs.html) > >I think that means that Emmentaler could be made SMuFL-compliant >without >having to add any characters: The intended use of Emmentaler is to work > >with LilyPond as it will have done before SMuFL-compliance. Of course, >once this is done, additions can be made. But there is no need of new >Metafont code for SMuFL-compliance so I don’t think we should abandon >Metafont. >
I fully agree with all of that, but I think what Johan wanted to say is that we should *first* work towards DMuFL compliance before spending manpower on Emmentaler extensions. Which I think is true and not. If there is someone willing to spend efforts adding stuff to Emmentaler that's a great thing and shouldn't be discouraged because we have even more pressing things to do. Urs >_______________________________________________ >lilypond-user mailing list >lilypond-user@gnu.org >https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user