Re: SMuFL

[Andrew Bernard]

Thanks Werner for pointing this out.

It would help if I read the SMuFL standard before commenting. :-) So I 
think my previous comments are invalid. Now that I have read the 
standard v 0.6, I see that it works hand in hand with Unicode, and is 
not in opposition to, or outside of Unicode. Given that SMuFL defines 
the Unicode code points for a much larger set of glyphs for music - and 
can be almost limitlessly expanded - than the current Unicode musical 
symbol set, and that Unicode is a very widely respected standard, would 
it not be the to go to have lilypond use the SMuFL standard for its 
fonts, and not to make a mapping between SMuFL and the current 
Emmentaler layout? Would this be a major or difficult internal change in 
the codebase?
This is of great interest to me because several of the people I do 
scores for (contemporary composers) do not favour the very heavy black 
Germanic look of the standard lilypond font, attractive though it may 
be. It would be nice to have a wider choice to offer in the future, and 
if SMuFL takes off as a standard, there may well be many fonts to choose 
from.

Andrew

On 10/08/13 2:21 PM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> I disagree, and I think that you are completely missing the purpose of
> SMuFL: It collects *glyphs* which are used somewhere, and which people
> need somehow.  Compare this to the Adobe Glyph Collections like
> `Adobe-Korea1-2' or `Adobe-GB1-5'.  As they write on smufl.org:
>
>    The goal of SMuFL is to establish a new standard glyph mapping for
>    musical symbols that is optimised for OpenType fonts and that can be
>    adopted by a variety of software vendors and font designers, for the
>    benefit of all users of music notation software.
>
> Unicode is a *character* standard, mainly to *exchange* information.
> It is *not* related to glyphs, or to fonts.  The SMuFL team correctly
> maps the glyphs to the Private Area of Unicode, and they don't suggest
> the inclusion of any of those entities into the Unicode standard.