Re: Caesura, n-th time :)

[Maximilian Albert]

Werner LEMBERG schrieb:

> > The first one is a stab at a new caesura glyph that has continuously
> > been requested on this list, according to the archives.
>
> Is there any reason why you are replacing the old glyph shape instead
> of adding a new one?

Well, the comment in mf/feta-schrift.mf:

  % I actually have no clue how they should look, so we use a slightly
  % curvy and tapered shape.

seemed to imply that the shape was designed by guessing, not by using a 
hand-engraved example. Also, the corresponding threads in the mailing 
list archives gave the impression that all real-world examples 
encountered by users had the shape of straigth parallel slashes. That's 
why I suggested to replace the glyph. Sorry if I offended anyone - this 
was certainly not my intention. Also, I agree that adding it as an 
alternative - as suggested by Han-Wen in a separate email - is certainly 
better (just didn't occur to me, don't ask me why :)). A corresponding 
patch will follow.


> > The only problem seemed to be that the corners didn't look very
> > symmetrical (which by the way is also the case with the existing
> > "noteheads.s[012]slash" glyphs).
>
> Regarding `noteheads.s[012]slash', this is not true.  If you use
> mf2pt1 to generate the feta fonts you can see that.  I rather suspect
> an artifact of the current glyph generation with mftrace.

Interesting. How can I make lily use mf2pt1 to generate the fonts? Also, 
since I don't have a high-resolution printer, the only way to closely 
inspect the glyphs is (rather awkwardly) by using Acrobat Reader with 
the greates zoom level, which often also seems to show artefacts like 
edges that certainly shouldn't be there (or is this an mftrace-related 
problem, too?). Do you have any suggestions how to do this more 
conveniently and, more importantly, less error-prone?

Thanks,
Max