Am 06.03.2017 um 23:46 schrieb tisimst: > 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? > I think this should be manageable. If we have proper access to the fonts (see the other part of my previous post) we can rather easily redirect non-existent files for optical sizes to the default "medium" size.
Urs _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
