New call for participation: fine-tuning script glyphs in LaTeX documents

[Urs Liska]

Hi all,

as said a few days ago I'm rewriting the lilyglyphs package, and it turns out 
that it is now significantly easier to add new commands for better coverage. 
I've already replaced the number of rest commands (\wholeNoteRest, 
\halfNoteRest etc.) by one single command \lilyRest that can e.g. be used like 
\lilyRest{2} (for a half note rest), \lilyRest[classical]{4} (for a "classical" 
quarter note rest) or \lilyRest[noline]{M1} (for a MMR without the stafflines).

Now I've implemented a command \lilyScript to access all the script glyphs in 
Emmentaler, and it turns out that *declaring* glyphs in a list is much easier 
than writing individual macros for each one.

See the attached result of the generated test file (don't try compiling the 
.tex file, that won't work, it's just to show the input syntax). As you see 
there is much to be done about how the glyphs have to be positioned in the 
"alien" context of continuous text (for example: items like the fermata are 
horizontally centered, which is natural in a score but doesn't work within a 
paragraph of text). This is easily done by setting "design options" like 
voffset, scale, lpadding, rpadding. But it *has* to be done, and I'd be pleased 
to be joined by people who would like to use notation elements in LaTeX 
documents, have a sharp eye for these details but maybe wouldn't dare tackling 
such things from a programming side ...

Please get back to me to explain how things would have to be set up for testing 
and contributing.

Best
Urs

scripts.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

scripts.tex
Description: Binary data