Re: SMuFL Bravura

[Malte Meyn]

Am 01.04.19 um 12:01 schrieb Johan Vromans:
> On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 09:17:26 +0200, Malte Meyn <address@hidden> 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.