|
From: | Urs Liska |
Subject: | Re: SMuFL |
Date: | Fri, 09 Aug 2013 16:24:21 +0200 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130510 Thunderbird/17.0.6 |
Am 09.08.2013 15:58, schrieb Carl
Peterson:
Yes, of course. What I meant is that, as a very first step, we could probably change the mapping of glyphs to codepoints without needing internal changes. These are two different issues, I think: Regarding glyphs defined in SMuFL that aren't present in Feta we could simply use them as inspiration what _could_ be added to Feta/LilyPond. The standard doesn't require any specific coverage. Its point is to guarantee that _if_ a font provides e.g. the fermata sign it's guaranteed to be accessible at a specific codepoint. The other way round is exactly as you say: making suggestions for additions to the standard is a good thing (only question: who'd volunteer comparing ...) Maybe we should start with suggesting the CreativeCommons logo to balance the no-copying one ;-) I don't know either. I'm only afraid it couldn't be feasible to 'simply' modify the right parameters but that it could imply complete 'retuning' of the layout system. Urs
|
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |