Carl Peterson <carlopeter...@gmail.com> schrieb:
>On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 5:46 AM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
>
>> Andrew Bernard <andrew.bern...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > On 10/08/13 7:10 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>> >
>> >> Of course, people are free to do whatever they want with their own
>time
>> >> and efforts. But if you do it out of a feeling of contributing to
>> >> LilyPond, it may be worth looking quite closer before investing a
>lot of
>> >> effort. You might also be disappointed in the lack of uptake by
>the
>> >> LilyPond websites, manuals and other resources for proprietary
>font
>> >> support.
>> > But as Urs points out, LaTex and so on do not have this problem.
>>
>> I recommend you reread what Urs write: TeXlive does not distribute
>> support files for non-free fonts. Now it is not really because it
>would
>> be a problem, but rather because it does not help the project, and
>you
>> can't test that kind of stuff anyway without acquiring proprietary
>> software.
>>
>>
>There is the fontspec package, primarily used with XeLaTeX, the purpose
>of
>which is to allow one to use any font in a LaTeX document, including
>proprietary fonts (whether you call the ability to use proprietary
>fonts
>intentional or incidental is likely one of those dreaded semantic
>distinctions).
>
That's about what I feel about it.
Having the option to use any font, including commercial ones, was one of the
things that finally made me switch to LaTeX.
If OpnOffice forced me to use free fonts exclusively I probably wouldn't use it.
>I think we're getting hung up on the fact that SMuFL is being
>promulgated
>by a corporate entity and the only implementation of SMuFL is produced
>by
>that corporate entity (and that most of the musical font work is being
>done
>by other corporate entities releasing them under proprietary licenses).
>Having a standard and being interoperable with that standard makes it
>easier for *any* font designer to build fonts for LilyPond and for any
>software package to use LilyPond fonts, whether the font or program
>happens
>to be open source or proprietary.
Exactly.
I think this would be an interesting situation.
And it would probably outweigh the fact that we'd give competitors the chance
using LilyPond's font too.
>
>I have a question. Does LilyPond currently have a set of documented
>standards to tell prospective font designers *explicitly* (1) how to
>set up
>their fonts for them to be referenced by LilyPond (glyph names), and
>(2)
>the metrics necessary to make their fonts work with LilyPond? One of
>the
>barriers I see to a lot of extensibility in this area is that even
>though
>LilyPond is open source, it is not exactly clear (and maybe I'm just
>not
>looking in the right place) what one is to do to build on to it. I was
>digging into the notehead file to fix an issue with some of the shaped
>noteheads and on a couple of the things I was looking at, it was very
>much
>a "guess and check and hope nothing breaks."
>
>I realize that the default answer to my question (if no such
>documentation
>exists) is, "Well, if it matters that much to you, get your hands dirty
>and
>do something about it." And you're probably right, but someone not
>already
>familiar with how the fonts work writing documentation to how the fonts
>work sounds a bit, well, counterintuitive.
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>lilypond-user mailing list
>lilypond-user@gnu.org
>https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
--
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
