|
From: | Andrew Bernard |
Subject: | Re: SMuFL |
Date: | Sat, 10 Aug 2013 08:44:07 +1000 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 |
Greetings List,There's an old IT joke that the beauty of having standards is that there are so many to choose from!
I agree with Shane. The SMuFL standard is just a specification cooked up by Steinberg for the new program. It's been possible for them to consider this since they are architecting the program from scratch. But it's a step away and outside of the hugely important work the Unicode Consortium have been doing for decades. No matter how clever SMuFL is, it's not well conceived philosophically for this reason. Lilyponders would be better off devoting time to working with the Unicode Consortium. Then a music glyph standard would truly have universal acceptance, due to the international respect Unicode has.
Unicode already has a Symbols area and the 6.2 standard provides a lot of glyphs. As a person involved with 18c harpsichord music myself, I note that they provide the glyphs to do pretty much all the 18c ornaments, which can be built up from parts. So the Unicode Consortium is certainly serious about music aspects.
Andrew On 10/08/13 1:47 AM, Shane Brandes wrote:
SMuFL has nothing much to do with preserving the Unicode standard. If you can get the Unicode consortium to participate in outlining SMuFL stuffs in its standard than it would be good, but an abstracted standard used by one or two applications is a bad idea especially for one text based like ours. It reduces the odds of universal support that the Unicode consortium is trying to create. We don't need such an extra layer of confusion. We just need to apply pressure to the consortium to get the things that are missing encoded. That is my stance. Shane
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |