On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 3:06 AM Malte Meyn <lilyp...@maltemeyn.de> wrote:
> > > Am 01.04.19 um 21:12 schrieb Urs Liska: > > I fully agree with all of that, but I think what Johan wanted to say is > that we should *first* work towards DMuFL compliance before spending > manpower on Emmentaler extensions. > > Which I think is true and not. If there is someone willing to spend > efforts adding stuff to Emmentaler that's a great thing and shouldn't be > discouraged because we have even more pressing things to do. > > That sounds reasonable. And maybe I should try to make some > contributions for SMuFL (renaming and rearranging glyphs should be not > too hard). But that probably should wait until the release of 2.20.0 and > 2.21.0, shouldn’t it? > I have been following this; but I do not know the interests of LilyPond. A code point is a name, changing the name defeats the purpose of SMuFL. SMuFL is in it early stages with more sambals and alternates being added that would have to be rename as they come about. It seems to me that the LilyPond name and the SMuFL codepoint (name) could be combined in some sort of OR statement allowing both. ƒg > > _______________________________________________ > lilypond-user mailing list > lilypond-user@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user >
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
