>> 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.
Well, similar to the lilypond glyphs which are essentially based on Bärenreiter shapes, we could take, say, the text glyph shapes of Universal Edition from a certain range of years (e.g. stuff published between WW I and WW II). Cloning an existing font specimen which gets then polished by a professional designer is the way to go IMHO. Similar to the music glyphs, those shapes have evolved over many years and have been used for some generations. > 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). Everybody can continue the use of the URW fonts! I see no conflict here. > I'm afraid that's way over my head to engage in (at least > currently). Unfortunately, me too, but it is a good thing to have such a discussion right now. It's even worth a bug tracker issue... Werner _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
