On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Urs Liska <u...@openlilylib.org> wrote:

> Am 09.08.2013 15:11, schrieb Jan-Peter Voigt:
> Of course I don't know that either, but I see a few steps:
> 1) Modify the mapping of glyphs to Unicode numbers
>    I think that would be very simple, just a matter of remapping them in a
> suitable application.
>    If LilyPond really accesses the glyphs by their names this wouldn't
> even imply any internal changes.
>

But then, if we intended to allow LilyPond to use other SMuFL-compliant
fonts, there *would* be internal changes, as we would have to have, at a
minimum, a mapping table to convert glyph names to codepoints. The broader
question for me is how many Feta glyphs *aren't* in the SMuFL standard and
how many SMuFL/Unicode codepoints aren't already represented in Feta. Since
they're looking for feedback, we may be able to "contribute to the
community" by providing such a list of glyphs that may need to be added to
the standard.


> 2) Adapt anchors and (perhaps) scaling
>    If I understand the SMuFL specification correctly it also specifies
> where the anchors should be set in the glyphs.
>    I don't know what this would mean in terms of development.
>    Maybe it's 'just' a matter of updating the glyphs and one setting in
> LilyPond for each glyph.
>    But it could also be that one would have to re-define the glyph
> positioning in LilyPond at a deeper level,
>    with all kinds of possible side-effects ...
>
> I read through/skimmed the SMuFL standard. The basic design concept/scale
is a 1em high five-line staff. Pretty much anything that is positioned
relative to a pitch is drawn so that the line y=0 in the glyph's coordinate
system corresponds to the reference pitch. Flags have the attachment point
as the origin. Generally all glyphs have x=0 at the leftmost edge. I don't
know how that necessarily translates for our purposes,

Carl
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Reply via email to