Re: SMuFL

[Johan Vromans]

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. I think we can wait until competing
non-Steinberg music software is picking up support for SMuFL.

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.

-- Johan