> How about hosting the fonts on www.lilypond.org and referencing them
> in the @font-face definition?
I think this is not a good idea.
* LilyPond fonts change from version to version, quite often in a
backwards-incompatible way. Hosting them for SVG access would
enforce us to completely revise how fonts are named and accessed –
and versioned. To a certain extent this will become better if the
transition to SMuFL is done, but it still complicates things.
* It would be necessary to serve subsetted fonts, too; otherwise, the
internet bandwidth would be far too large. LilyPond has zero
support for that.
* Contrary to fonts, hinting does not make sense for most musical
glyphs. In other words, the benefit of accessing LilyPond graphical
objects (grobs) as real glyphs in fonts is zero.
* Serving non-musical fonts would be definitely out of scope for
'lilypond.org'.
What exactly do you want to achieve? What kind of SVGs do you need?
In previous e-mails I mentioned two solutions how SVGs could be
improved:
* using inkscape's option `-T` to convert glyphs to outlines
* conversion from PDF to SVG with inkscape
Doesn't this suffice?
Werner
_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
