Re: SMuFL name mapping update

[Werner LEMBERG]

>> * Number sets: Since LilyPond uses the same glyphs for time
>>   signatures, figured bass, and fingerings, we probably have to map
>>   the Emmentaler glyphs to all SMuFL sets, irrespective of the
>>   size.  In general, I think that size issues are only to be
>>   considered if the size matters *in context* (for example, '22'
>>   vs. '2²').  AFAICS, this is not the case here.
> 
> That's what I thought at first.  The issue is that SMuFL requires
> all glyphs to be scaled to the same unit staff space already.

Hmm.

> It doesn't ask notation programs to handle sizing on their own. If
> we were to map our current glyphs to all three number sets, we'd
> have non-LilyPond programs outputting comically large fingering and
> figured bass numbers by default.  I personally think that leaving
> the smaller sets unassigned, letting programs handle the missing
> glyphs as they wish, is a far more graceful failure.

Indeed.  Care to open an SMuFL issue at their site?

> If we really don't want tofu, one solution I can think of is to give
> Emmentaler a second set of number glyphs, reusing the code that
> generates our current set, just at the proper smaller scale (taking
> into account stroke width, etc.). That new set can then be mapped to
> fingeringX and figbassX, leaving our current number set mapped to
> timeSigX.

Yes, this should be straightforward and easy to implement.  Can you
work on that?

>> * Regarding the other accidentals: I think this deserves a
>>   discussion with the SMuFL people; at least for me, the given
>>   SMuFL descriptions don't suffice to come to final conclusions –
>>   maybe they have a database with more information?
> 
> Good idea.  I just sent a message to the public-music-notation
> mailing list at W3C.

Thanks!


    Werner