Re: SMuFL

[David Kastrup]

Urs Liska <address@hidden> writes:

> Johan Vromans <address@hidden> schrieb:
>
>>Carl Peterson <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> I think we're getting hung up on the fact that SMuFL is being
>>> promulgated by a corporate entity and the only implementation of
>>> SMuFL is produced by that corporate entity (and that most of the
>>> musical font work is being done by other corporate entities
>>> releasing them under proprietary licenses).
>>
>>Am I the only one to interpret SMuFL as *Steinberg* Music Font Layout?
>>
>>What is missing from the SMuFL information is an impressive list of
>>music software that backs up SMuFL.
>
> That's the question.
> Of course at this point of time we can't expect any list to be existent.
>
>> I think we can wait until competing
>> non-Steinberg music software is picking up support for SMuFL.
> Of course, but what if everybody thinks so?

People comfortable with proprietary licensing have more to gain than we
have.

>>Waiting for broad support does not mean that it won't be good to start
>>thinking how LilyPond font handling can benefit from a SMuFL(-like)
>>approach.
>
> That's what we're doing right now. And despite all the controversy I
> think that's a good thing.

So far, I don't see that SMuFL is more than calling a particular choice
a standard.  You could equally well say "why isn't Steinberg picking up
the Emmentaler standard?".  SMuFL is a font layout.  Saying "it will be
good to start thinking how LilyPond font handling can benefit from a
font layout" makes precious little sense since obviously we _have_ a
font layout.

So the question is one of "how can LilyPond benefit from supporting
_more_ font layouts" or "how can LilyPond benefit from _changing_ its
font layout".

Now LilyPond can't even support multiple music fonts with the _same_
font layout.  So the first question LilyPond needs to solve is "how can
we support multiple music fonts".  This question does not require SMuFL.
We already have the free fonts Gonville and the Jazz font project in
need of having this question resolved, and I don't see that we have much
to gain by focusing a much more complex question with so far dubious
benefits (to put it mildly) when we have not even tackled the simpler
question with tangible benefits.

-- 
David Kastrup