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
