On 11/08/13 8:09 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
So far, I don't see that SMuFL is more than calling a particular
choice a standard. You could equally well say "why isn't Steinberg
picking up the Emmentaler standard?". SMuFL is a font layout. Saying
"it will be good to start thinking how LilyPond font handling can
benefit from a font layout" makes precious little sense since
obviously we _have_ a font layout.
SmuFL is a _proposed_ standard, seeking to gain acceptance if it has
merit. I have not seen Emmentaler being proposed as an industry standard
(perhaps it has been?) So it goes further than just Steinberg's format
for their application. It is being posited as something that can be
shared. Obviously there is political benefit in this for Steinberg being
seen to be creating and promoting standards, but there is technical
benefit as well. I'm aware that lilypond has fairly deep font
complexities - isn't that the point, to help unify the approach to music
fonts, with one goal in mind of allowing the _engraver_ to have more
choice? There is discussion of what is the benefit to lilypond, but
shouldn't that be rephrased and cached in terms of what is the benefit
to the users of the program? So David, what is the most important area
that needs tackling re font handing in lilypond, and where do the main
difficulties lie? Why is it so hard to offer more fonts for lilypond?
What are the technical obstacles.
Andrew
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user