Am 02.01.2015 um 21:21 schrieb tisimst:
Urs Liska wrote
Am 02.01.2015 um 20:35 schrieb tisimst:
No complaints? That's not a problem.
Maybe this is because nobody (who noticed the post) really understands
the implications?
Urs
That's fair.
The implication is this: If you need to use more than the standard glyph set
(e.g., the common noteheads, clefs, articulations, time signature numerals,
accidentals, etc.) then you may have to use Emmentaler instead of, say,
Haydn, or at least a mixture of the two. The biggest examples of this are
the shape-note noteheads and ancient chant glyphs (i.e., petrucci, kievan,
etc.).
Does that make more sense?
Do I get this right:
- Currently you create new fonts that contain the same set of glyphs as
Emmentaler, but with quite a number of original Emmentaler glyphs.
- You suggest to strip these literal copies from the alternative fonts
to avoid redundancy.
?
Hm ...
If these assumptions are correct then I think I'd prefer redundancy in
this case because otherwise you'd encounter problems that are hard to
understand when LilyPond doesn't seem to print all glyphs anymore.
Maybe it would be a good idea to produce glyph tables for the fonts that
clearly state which glyphs are Emmentaler copies, but basically I'd
prefer complete fonts.
Except you could come up with a way to let LilyPond select Emmentaler
glyphs as fallback when a glyph is missing from the selected font. That
would be a clean solution IMO.
HTH
Urs
-Abraham
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Alternative-fonts-glyph-support-tp169988p170043.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
--
Urs Liska
www.openlilylib.org
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
