[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GSoC 2017
From: |
Urs Liska |
Subject: |
Re: GSoC 2017 |
Date: |
Mon, 6 Mar 2017 23:54:09 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/45.6.0 |
Am 06.03.2017 um 23:46 schrieb tisimst:
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 3:34 PM, Urs Liska [via Lilypond] <
> address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> Of course it is good to have optical sizes - even if the vast majority
>> of LilyPond users may not even be aware of it. And it's not depending on
>> the number of different sizes in a score but already on a single staff
>> size. If you want to engrave a pocket score requiring very small staves
>> it's obviously better to have optical sizes that aren't simply scaled
>> down.
>> So we should definitely use the optical sizes equally when font handling
>> is done by SMuFL, but (as you say) should be prepared that more or less
>> any other font won't have it. (None of your fonts have it, Abraham,
>> isn't it?).
>
> At the moment, that's correct. I'm hoping to change this sometime this
> year, though, time permitting. The root of this idea though is, how to
> handle fonts that only have a single size and those that have multiple
> sizes?
>
I think this should be manageable. If we have proper access to the fonts
(see the other part of my previous post) we can rather easily redirect
non-existent files for optical sizes to the default "medium" size.
Urs
- Re: Website upload, (continued)
- Re: GSoC 2017, Urs Liska, 2017/03/06
- Re: GSoC 2017, Werner LEMBERG, 2017/03/06
- Re: GSoC 2017, Urs Liska, 2017/03/06
- Re: GSoC 2017, tisimst, 2017/03/06
- Re: GSoC 2017, Urs Liska, 2017/03/06
- Re: GSoC 2017, tisimst, 2017/03/06
- Re: GSoC 2017,
Urs Liska <=
- Re: GSoC 2017, Werner LEMBERG, 2017/03/11
- Font loading (was: GSoC 2017), Urs Liska, 2017/03/11
- Re: GSoC 2017, Noeck, 2017/03/06
- Re: GSoC 2017, tisimst, 2017/03/06
- Re: GSoC 2017, Urs Liska, 2017/03/06
- Re: GSoC 2017, Werner LEMBERG, 2017/03/06