On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 3:34 PM, Urs Liska [via Lilypond] < ml-node+s1069038n200802...@n5.nabble.com> wrote:
> Of course it is good to have optical sizes - even if the vast majority > of LilyPond users may not even be aware of it. And it's not depending on > the number of different sizes in a score but already on a single staff > size. If you want to engrave a pocket score requiring very small staves > it's obviously better to have optical sizes that aren't simply scaled > down. > So we should definitely use the optical sizes equally when font handling > is done by SMuFL, but (as you say) should be prepared that more or less > any other font won't have it. (None of your fonts have it, Abraham, > isn't it?). At the moment, that's correct. I'm hoping to change this sometime this year, though, time permitting. The root of this idea though is, how to handle fonts that only have a single size and those that have multiple sizes? -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/GSoC-2017-tp200631p200805.html Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
