Re: GSoC 2017

[Urs Liska]

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