Re: Alternative fonts glyph support

[Urs Liska]

Am 02.01.2015 um 21:21 schrieb tisimst:
> Urs Liska wrote
> > Am 02.01.2015 um 20:35 schrieb tisimst:
> > > No complaints? That's not a problem.
> >
> > Maybe this is because nobody (who noticed the post) really understands
> > the implications?
> >
> > Urs
>
> That's fair.
>
> The implication is this: If you need to use more than the standard glyph set
> (e.g., the common noteheads, clefs, articulations, time signature numerals,
> accidentals, etc.) then you may have to use Emmentaler instead of, say,
> Haydn, or at least a mixture of the two. The biggest examples of this are
> the shape-note noteheads and ancient chant glyphs (i.e., petrucci, kievan,
> etc.).
>
> Does that make more sense?

Do I get this right:
- Currently you create new fonts that contain the same set of glyphs as
  Emmentaler, but with quite a number of original Emmentaler glyphs.
- You suggest to strip these literal copies from the alternative fonts
  to avoid redundancy.
?

Hm ...
If these assumptions are correct then I think I'd prefer redundancy in 
this case because otherwise you'd encounter problems that are hard to 
understand when LilyPond doesn't seem to print all glyphs anymore.
Maybe it would be a good idea to produce glyph tables for the fonts that 
clearly state which glyphs are Emmentaler copies, but basically I'd 
prefer complete fonts.
Except you could come up with a way to let LilyPond select Emmentaler 
glyphs as fallback when a glyph is missing from the selected font. That 
would be a clean solution IMO.

HTH
Urs

> -Abraham
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: 
> http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Alternative-fonts-glyph-support-tp169988p170043.html
> Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-user mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user


--
Urs Liska
www.openlilylib.org