Re: SMuFL

[Andrew Bernard]

On 11/08/13 8:09 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> So far, I don't see that SMuFL is more than calling a particular 
> choice a standard. You could equally well say "why isn't Steinberg 
> picking up the Emmentaler standard?". SMuFL is a font layout. Saying 
> "it will be good to start thinking how LilyPond font handling can 
> benefit from a font layout" makes precious little sense since 
> obviously we _have_ a font layout.
SmuFL is a _proposed_ standard, seeking to gain acceptance if it has 
merit. I have not seen Emmentaler being proposed as an industry standard 
(perhaps it has been?) So it goes further than just Steinberg's format 
for their application. It is being posited as something that can be 
shared. Obviously there is political benefit in this for Steinberg being 
seen to be creating and promoting standards, but there is technical 
benefit as well. I'm aware that lilypond has fairly deep font 
complexities - isn't that the point, to help unify the approach to music 
fonts, with one goal in mind of allowing the _engraver_ to have more 
choice? There is discussion of what is the benefit to lilypond, but 
shouldn't that be rephrased and cached in terms of what is the benefit 
to the users of the program? So David, what is the most important area 
that needs tackling re font handing in lilypond, and where do the main 
difficulties lie? Why is it so hard to offer more fonts for lilypond? 
What are the technical obstacles.

Andrew