Re: SMuFL support: matching glyph names 1

[Abraham Lee]

This is great, Owen! One thing to keep in mind is that most applications
don’t access glyphs by name like LilyPond does. They access by codepoint.
So, in the vein of making Emmentaler SMuFL compliant, codepoint will be
more import than name. You may already be taking this into account, but if
not, aside from name mapping, you ought to consider how the glyphs should
be remapped to the SMuFL code points. LilyPond doesn’t care if the glyphs
even have a codepoint. I’ve created numerous fonts with extra symbols that
don’t have a codepoint at all and it works wonderfully.

That all said, I’d recommend this: use LilyPond’s recognized names, use
SMuFL code points. That may simplify the effort somewhat.

Keep up the awesome work!

Best,
Abraham

On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 3:00 PM Owen Lamb <olamb@asu.edu> wrote:

> Hi all!
>
> I've been working on matching Emmentaler's glyphs to SMuFL glyph names,
> and I'd appreciate some input on what I have so far.
>
> Attached is a spreadsheet with my plans for naming the Clef, Time
> Signature, Number, and Accidental glyph categories, as enumerated at
> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.23/Documentation/notation/the-emmentaler-font.
> The SMuFL names were taken from the Standard Music Font Layout
> Specification, v1.4, found at https://w3c.github.io/smufl/latest, under
> the Glyph Tables heading.
>
> I'm looking especially for input from folks who have experience with the
> Stockhausen accidental system, as well as whoever knows the background
> behind and usage of our accidentals.mirroredflat.backslash and
> accidentals.flatflat.slash glyphs. Everyone's advice is welcome, though!
>
> If all goes well, this message will be the first of several like it, as
> I determine what to name every Emmentaler glyph under the SMuFL system.
>
> (As a reminder, this will /not/ override the current glyph naming
> scheme; it /will /be providing an alternate way of locating glyphs
> within LilyPond and give other programs a way to access Emmentaler's
> glyphs via the SMuFL system.)
>
> After a few days, if no one's made any objections, I'll move on to the
> next few glyph categories.
>
> Regards,
> Owen
>
>