Urs Liska <li...@ursliska.de> writes: > Am 09.01.2013 19:11, schrieb Werner LEMBERG: >>>>> I'm rather looking for a free alternative to be shared publicly .... >>>> That's what i mean. Free software needs funding too :) >>>> >>>> On 9 Jan 2013, at 08:47, Urs Liska <li...@ursliska.de> wrote: >>> Precisely. It makes sense to fund a public resource. >>> >>> If you see something close to what you want Playfair for example, >>> you could ask the designer to make a version with less contrast as >>> Libre software and fund that work. He probably has a lower contrast >>> version already. >> Actually, I would rather like to have a font which exactly clones the >> old lyrics font. But this is probably me only. > This points to one problem I see with this approach: > If one wanted to create something new (or rework something existing) > there would be _much_ discussion to do. And I don't know if this would > lead to some agreement. > I recall the heated debate when Janek retouched the single glyph of > the treble clef and don't dare to imagine the potential conflicts when > it comes to a whole font. > Basically everybody in this discussion has different needs and > opinions. What a new font would imply wouldn't be less than a new > visual appearance for LilyPond (even if considered as an optional > addition).
At least with regard to chord names, the current situation is untenable. That does not necessarily mean that a new font needs to be developed. But one way or the other, the default look of LilyPond needs to be more consistent and less ugly. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
