Re: Lilypond font design
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, Till Rettig wrote: Hei, I was wondering if I could start some contribution to the medieval notation support That would be great! via redesigning the fonts that in my opinion don't look very good. Especially referring to the mensural notehead style (I think the petrucci looks quite fine, but neomensural and mensural heads are lot too small and also a bit boring, eg. too conform). Agreed. I have been mainly concentrating on Vaticana style and Petrucci style. As Werner already indicated, the ancient font was written before Lily used fontforge et al. Therefore, the glyphs do not follow all prerequisites that Lily glyphs are nowadays supposed to consider (in particular, there are some metafont constructs, that should not be used). Personally, I had so far no time to convert them. So, if you design new glyphs, please follow the guidelines that Werner mentioned. Also, you should be aware of some subtle optical pitfalls such as the fact that e.g. the slightly thickened lines on the lower left and upper right of the semibrevis head make the head look asymetrical, which you may want to compensate by its geometry (IIRC this is partially commented somewhere in the .mf files). I know there are thouthands of styles due to the fact that everybody wrote their own style, but we might choose from them one that would be really nice looking (kind of the same as the feta font does). I am not yet quite finished with my thinking how the heads really should look, but I think a really nice overall look gives the Copenhagen chancionnier, Burgung, late 15th century. Compare for example this page: http://base.kb.dk/pls/hsk_web/hsk_vis.side?p_hs_loebenr=27p_sidenr=8p_illnr=0p_frem=20p_tilbage=9p_navtype=relp_lang=dan or others from this book. For experimenting, maybe at first you want to introduce a new style (similarly to the Petrucci style)? Later, if your glyphs are mature, you still can replace the mensural/neo-mensural glyphs with those from you. So I would like to hear some opinions on this issue and also some hints about how Lilypond's fonts work (fontforge doesn't show any glyphs on the emental and I have no idea how to open svg fonts nor how they work). Also other issues about the mensural notation support could be solved, especially spacing (as in the picture), then those ligature issues. And Most spacing problems in ancient notation are related with the spacing engine, rather than with the font (actually, the bounding boxes of the ancient glyphs should be fairly good). You may find some further hints as comments in the lily/*ligature*.cc files as well as in ly/gregorian-init.ly and the ancient context definitions in ly/engraver-init.ly. A couple of months ago, I figured out three places in the spacing engine which have to be tweaked in order to get equally tight spacing (although these changes also affected spacing of clefs, accidentals, etc., which is not desirable). However, many things have changed since then in the spacing engine. it would probably be convenient to have also a kind of init file same as for the gregorian notation style. Agreed. Especially, one may want move stuff from engraver-init.ly to a mensural-init.ly. On the other side, then the user will have to add a \include mensural-init.ly, which you currently do not need to do (as the definitions in engraver-init.ly are automatically imported). I am not sure about this point (i.e. having clearly separated definitions that you manually have to import versus putting them into engraver.ly and friends versus having them clearly separated but automatically always importing them). On a later plane I would also like to have integration of other styles of mensural notation, even starting from the modal notation of the 12th century France. Yes, sounds interesting. Also, mannered notation would be nice. However, be aware that you easily end up in a kind of bottomless pit. I think the real challenge here is to make the associated mechanisms on the C++ level more flexible (spacing engine, glyph selection, ...), such that you have sufficient infrastructure in order to plug-and-play styles on the scheme level. Greetings, Juergen Greetings Till ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Updated spanish translation
John Mandereau wrote: The tutorial from the user manual, but you should wait until I've documented documentation translation. As I'm very busy, it may take a week. In the meantime, you could read and check lilypond.org translation for possible typos and translation improvements with Francisco, look at odd jobs proposed by Graham, or prepare future docs translation by making a translation glossary of music theory and engraving terms, like one of the French translators Frédéric Chiasson did: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user-fr/2006-12/msg3.html This kind of glossary is useful to make sure you always translate a technical word the same way. This sounds good, I think I will also start this kind of glossary for the German version. Wouldn't it be nice to also have the glossaries at a better place downloadable? I mean: Now we have the word list from english to other languages, which is really usefull, but I don't think it is as complete as the french glossary is. Or let's say we would put it into the LANG-tree of the webpage. Would be also interested about how to do the translation of the tutorial once you are finished with the preparations. Although it will supposedly take some more time than the weppage to translate... Greetings Till ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Lilypond font design
Werner LEMBERG wrote: I was wondering if I could start some contribution to the medieval notation support via redesigning the fonts that in my opinion don't look very good. [...] I can't give any design recommendation due to lack of knowledge. Whatever you do, *please* follow the guidelines in mf/README (almost all ancient glyphs don't do that, unfortunately). An `exact' conversion would be really cool! Well, I don't really know yet anything about font design myself except maybe the point that ttf/otf fonts have a wide variance of substitution rules that are possible to intergrate. But does Lily care about them? Anyways, I will have a closer look at the README. Do you think I should generate mf fonts? So I would like to hear some opinions on this issue and also some hints about how Lilypond's fonts work (fontforge doesn't show any glyphs on the emental [...]) Of course it does! Just select Encoding-Reencode-Glyph Order (the last entry is `Original' in older FontForge versions). I will try this! Greetings Till ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Lilypond font design
I hope you have realized that you have to learn MetaFont to be able to implement the fonts (at least if you want them included in the distribution). /Mats ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Lilypond font design
Whatever you do, *please* follow the guidelines in mf/README (almost all ancient glyphs don't do that, unfortunately). An `exact' conversion would be really cool! Well, I don't really know yet anything about font design myself except maybe the point that ttf/otf fonts have a wide variance of substitution rules that are possible to intergrate. This isn't of importance for fonts containing music glyphs. But does Lily care about them? Not directly (this is, Pango takes care of ligatures and the like). Anyways, I will have a closer look at the README. Do you think I should generate mf fonts? Yes, definitely. Starting with existing glyphs which then get modified is not too complicated. Werner ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Guile and Lily
Hello, I've compiled and installed guile-1.8 + rational patch, and I'm now trying to compile Lily against this. All is fine until the build-system reach the lily/ subdir: accidental-placement.cc: In function 'void Accidental_placement_calc_positioning_done_init_functions()': accidental-placement.cc:246: error: invalid conversion from 'scm_unused_struct* (*)()' to 'scm_unused_struct* (*)(...)' accidental-placement.cc:246: error: initializing argument 5 of 'scm_unused_struct* scm_c_define_gsubr(const char*, int, int, int, scm_unused_struct* (*)(...))' make[1]: *** [out/accidental-placement.o] Error 1 make: *** [all] Error 2 Any ideas? In the meantime I'll try to build against guile-cvs and see if that helps... Regards, Erlend ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Guile and Lily
Ok, compiled successfully with this change: diff --git a/lily/include/lily-guile.hh b/lily/include/lily-guile.hh index 6eef555..d9387cb 100644 --- a/lily/include/lily-guile.hh +++ b/lily/include/lily-guile.hh @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ Hack for various MacOS incarnations. */ #ifndef GUILE_ELLIPSIS -#define GUILE_ELLIPSIS +#define GUILE_ELLIPSIS ... #endif #include guile-compatibility.hh Erlend On 1/18/07, Erlend Aasland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmmm, can it be related to this: lily/include/lily-guile.hh: /* Hack for various MacOS incarnations. */ #ifndef GUILE_ELLIPSIS #define GUILE_ELLIPSIS #endif Forgot to mention that I'm on MacOSX 10.4.8... Erlend On 1/18/07, Erlend Aasland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I've compiled and installed guile-1.8 + rational patch, and I'm now trying to compile Lily against this. All is fine until the build-system reach the lily/ subdir: accidental-placement.cc: In function 'void Accidental_placement_calc_positioning_done_init_functions()': accidental-placement.cc:246: error: invalid conversion from 'scm_unused_struct* (*)()' to 'scm_unused_struct* (*)(...)' accidental-placement.cc:246: error: initializing argument 5 of 'scm_unused_struct* scm_c_define_gsubr(const char*, int, int, int, scm_unused_struct* (*)(...))' make[1]: *** [out/accidental-placement.o] Error 1 make: *** [all] Error 2 Any ideas? In the meantime I'll try to build against guile-cvs and see if that helps... Regards, Erlend ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
[Fwd: ps redundancy]
Forwarded to lilypond-devel
/Mats
Original Message
Subject:ps redundancy
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 00:09:53 -0500
From: Pierre Abbat [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: lilypond-user@gnu.org
I'm looking at the ps output of Lilypond ('cause I'm writing a completely
unrelated program that also outputs ps) and see this:
/set-ps-scale-to-lily-scale {
lily-output-units output-scale mul
lily-output-units output-scale mul scale
} bind def
Couldn't you say
/set-ps-scale-to-lily-scale {
lily-output-units output-scale mul dup scale
} bind def
?
Pierre
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
--
=
Mats Bengtsson
Signal Processing
Signals, Sensors and Systems
Royal Institute of Technology
SE-100 44 STOCKHOLM
Sweden
Phone: (+46) 8 790 8463
Fax: (+46) 8 790 7260
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.s3.kth.se/~mabe
=
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
