Re: Sample string for Emmentaler

[Torsten Hämmerle]

Urs Liska-3 wrote
> You mean for each LilyPond version?
> I'd assume all LilyPond-relatedfonts should be the same in this respect.


Yes, For each LilyPond version (because each LilyPond version gets its own
current set of Emmentaler).
But the same holds true for any other font compatible with LilyPond, such as
Gonville.

Just three examples for the treble clef "clefs.G":

Emmentaler-20, 2.19.82: treble clef "clefs.G" U+E176
Emmentaler-20, 2.21.0: treble clef "clefs.G" U+E17B
Gonville-20 font (early release): treble clef "clefs.G" U+E11D

They're all in the Private Use area.
Any new sign will alter this and even the order of characters within the
font may be different:
In Emmentaler, the accidentals have lower numbers than the clefs, in my
version of Gonville, the accidentals have higher numbers than the clefs.
Also, the number of glyphs will be different in different fonts (cf. the new
flags and rests up to 1024th or new scripts as Haydn turn).


A general problem I see with SMuFL fonts is that LilyPond has a different
philosophy: LilyPond will re-use (and eventually scale) existing glyphs,
whereas SMuFL is terribly redundant, endlessly reduplicating certain glyphs.

Example: the numerals 0123456789 in LilyPond are used for fingering, string
numbers, volta numbers, figured bass, even time signatures and may other
purposes.
In SMuFL, there will be many different versions of these numerals in
slightly different sizes (or even exact duplicates): every single purpose
you could think of will get its own private "2".

Furthermore, LilyPond will build up many markups by combing several glyphs,
e.g.
"8va" will be a combination of "8", "v", and "a", whereas SMuFL will have
one single special glyph for "8va", there are tons of examples.

All the best,
Torsten



--
Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html