On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 11:42 PM Paolo Prete <paolopr...@gmail.com> wrote: > *All* my opinions are personal opinions. And I don't expect they will be > followed or implemented.
If you really expect that, why bother sending this email? Let's all just assume that they're not just your personal opinions, but that you have found genuine defects in the font. We're not going to adjust glyphs because they don't conform to your opinion. We can adjust glyphs if we find there are bugs in them. > Meanwhile, for anyone interested I focus on some aspects that IMHO make > that font really desirable for Lilypond, at least as an option. Be free to > agree or not agree: here is my list > > 1) Look at the treble clef. IMHO Lilypond doesn't need to be so high, and > in fact the author of the font has reduced its height. Using a treble clef > higher than necessary leads to spacing problems between staves. I actually doubt this. The clef is at the start of the line, and there are usually no things sticking out of the bottom of the at the start of the previous line. > 2) In general, for keys, there is no need to use bold glyph. The default > bold glyphs, which are Bravura's philosophy (AFAIK), were fine when Can you explain what you mean with "bold" glyphs. The accidentals only exist in one flavor. > 3) Look at the time signature. In the Feta font the two numbers overlap and > can be annoying at the sight, IMHO. This problem was solved by the Gonville > font. Can you file a bug with an image? Over here, the digits do not overlap with each other, but do overlap slightly with the staff lines. (see attachment). > 4) Look at the sharp glyph: it is reduced in width, saving space and > remaining perfectly legible at the same time. The gonville font is well done, but we usually base formatting decisions on plate engravings. Could you do some measurements to demonstrate what ranges of dimensions (relative to staff space) are common? > 5) Look at the flat glyph: the horizontal line has been reduced in > thickness, which once again pairs well with lighter staves and stems. The flat glyph has no horizontal line. You can see the glyph it was based on over here: http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/essay/engraving-details.en.html note that the feta glyph is actually lighter than its inspiration. > 6) Look at the glyph of forcing: it forms a single word, and not the union > of three different characters (which is very distracting, in my opinion) what is 'forcing' ? > 7) Look at the trill glyph: it's simpler, cleaner and less "baroque", Maybe Jan can comment. The comment says it's based on a Saint Saens Cello concerto, which I can't recall ever having seen. > 8) Look at the bequadro glyph: the Feta one is too large compared to the > NoteHead and this has also been corrected in the gonville font. Scans? "Too large": do you mean too wide, or too high? > I could go on with many other details. Thanks. I could go on asking questions, but I am really looking for data rather than opinions. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - hanw...@gmail.com - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
