[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SMuFL
From: |
Kieren MacMillan |
Subject: |
Re: SMuFL |
Date: |
Sun, 11 Aug 2013 10:31:46 -0400 |
Hi all,
> 3)
> It's currently not really an option to tackle such a change from the
> technical POV.
> LilyPond is quite far away from being able to play together with other fonts.
From my (perhaps naïve) perspective, this seems to be the chicken whence the
egg comes. ;)
Put another way: If we focused on solving #3 — i.e., fixing Lily so that she
DOES play easily/well/perfectly with other fonts — wouldn't we be in a far
better position to act on #1 and #2, if it was desirable/feasible/acceptable?
And said effort, it seems to me, would not be wasted even if we bailed on
SMuFL, and simply made other free (possibly non-SMuFL compliant) fonts a part
of the standard Lily distro.
Am I wrong there?
Thanks,
Kieren.
- Re: SMuFL, (continued)
- Re: SMuFL, Urs Liska, 2013/08/10
- Re: SMuFL, Johan Vromans, 2013/08/11
- Re: SMuFL, Urs Liska, 2013/08/11
- Re: SMuFL, David Kastrup, 2013/08/11
- Re: SMuFL, Andrew Bernard, 2013/08/11
- Re: SMuFL, Urs Liska, 2013/08/11
- Re: SMuFL, David Kastrup, 2013/08/11
- Re: SMuFL, Urs Liska, 2013/08/11
- Re: SMuFL, David Kastrup, 2013/08/11
- Re: SMuFL, Urs Liska, 2013/08/11
- Re: SMuFL,
Kieren MacMillan <=
- Re: SMuFL, David Kastrup, 2013/08/11
- Re: SMuFL, David Kastrup, 2013/08/11
Re: SMuFL, Janek Warchoł, 2013/08/17
Re: SMuFL, Klaus Föhl, 2013/08/12