Re: SMuFL Bravura

[Malte Meyn]

Am 01.04.19 um 08:59 schrieb Johan Vromans:
> On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 11:37:42 +1100, Andrew Bernard
> <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > Now to learn Metafont then. Shouldn't be too hard -
>
> As a retired TeXnician I have deep respect for TeX and MetaFont.
> Nevertheless I think the right way now is to go for widely accepted
> standards where possible.
>
> So I'd rather see decent SMuFL integration than more home grown Emmentaler
> extensions.

SMuFL integration and using Metafont for glyph creation don’t 
contradict, do they? Of course we should concentrate on glyphs requested 
by SMuFL instead of “home grown” symbols. But why not use Metafont for 
that? And if someone misses a glyph in Emmentaler that is not in SMuFL 
one should make an enhancement request 
(https://github.com/w3c/smufl/issues or 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-music-notation-contrib/)

Of course we would have to rename the Emmentaler glyphs and have a 
script that puts them at the correct code points in the font. And we 
would have to look at the specification 
(https://w3c.github.io/smufl/gitbook/specification/) for glyph metrics, 
ligatures etc. Probably when metrics change there have to be changes in 
the LilyPond source code too …