Re: SMuFL

[Urs Liska]

Am 09.08.2013 15:11, schrieb Jan-Peter Voigt:
> Am 09.08.2013 14:39, schrieb Urs Liska:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > although I suspect this could once more become a longish and 
> > scattered thread, I feel forced to bring it up here.
> :)
> > What do you think: would it make sense to open up LilyPond thinking 
> > to the idea of SMuFL brought up by Steinberg and Daniel Spreadbury?
> > http://www.smufl.org <http://www.smufl.org/>
> >
> > Of course currently it's only their new Bravura font that complies to 
> > that proposed standard.
> > But I can imagine there will be more 'participators' in mid-term future.
> >
> > Making Emmentaler/Feta SMuFL-compliant could have several advantages 
> > IMHO:
> > - Open up the possibility (or at least make a step in that direction)
> >   to use alternative fonts for LilyPond engraved scores.
> >   Once LilyPond could use SMuFL compliant fonts it would be easy
> >   to use any new font that adheres to the standard
> > - Increasing LilyPond's 'cooperativeness'
> >   (a technical aspect as well as a 'social' signal)
> +1
> If we were able to increase lilyponds "cooperativeness", it would help 
> lilypond.
> I don't know, what it would take to make Emmentaler/Feta SMuFL compliant, 
Of course I don't know that either, but I see a few steps:
1) Modify the mapping of glyphs to Unicode numbers
   I think that would be very simple, just a matter of remapping them 
in a suitable application.
   If LilyPond really accesses the glyphs by their names this wouldn't 
even imply any internal changes.
2) Adapt anchors and (perhaps) scaling
   If I understand the SMuFL specification correctly it also specifies 
where the anchors should be set in the glyphs.
   I don't know what this would mean in terms of development.
   Maybe it's 'just' a matter of updating the glyphs and one setting in 
LilyPond for each glyph.
   But it could also be that one would have to re-define the glyph 
positioning in LilyPond at a deeper level,
   with all kinds of possible side-effects ...

> but I would appreciate such a step. It might help steinberg and Daniel 
> Spreadbury promote this new standard - IMHO this is a good thing - it 
> is an open standard and lilypond might use any SMuFL compliant font.
Yes, and that might justify the work in my step 2) above.
I can imagine that the option of using other fonts outweighs that other 
applications can then use 'our' font.
> And that we don't forget it ;) musicXML export would also open 
> lilypond for other uses.
Well, unfortunately (and completely unexpectedly ...) noone stepped out 
with unlimited time and this specific motivation in the meantime ;-)

Urs
> Jan-Peter Voigt
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-user mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user