Re: SMuFL name mapping update, 9 July

[Werner LEMBERG]

>> * Regarding `noteheads.uM2`, I don't see a problem with removing the
>>    hard-coded stems.
> 
> That's good to hear.  If we do, though, we'll have to reconcile
> breve/longa sidebars with Lily's customizable stems.  I'm thinking
> we keep our breve glyphs for SMuFL compatibility, but in LP itself
> we draw breves and longas as noteheads.s0 with primitive sidebars.

You mean with ligatures?

>> * I think that the five Bravura glyphs can all be aliases for
>>    `noteheads.s2xcircle`.  The differences are really marginal,
>>    AFAICS.
> 
> Good point.  They look kinda different when you zoom in, but
> considering noteheads.s2xcircle is used for every note value anyway,
> it just makes sense.

The idea is that it can be easily disentangled if needed.

By the way, it certainly makes sense in the forthcoming documentation
of the LilyPond → SMuFL mapping to describe which glyphs are only
approximations based on similar shapes, and which ones are truly
identical.  In other words, please preserve all comments, probably
augmented with links to discussions, etc., etc.  It seems that this
project deserves a small database...


    Werner