|Subject:||Re: SMuFL name mapping update, 9 July|
|Date:||Sat, 10 Jul 2021 16:47:40 -0700|
|User-agent:||Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0|
I looked over the list, focusing on the shape notes. Nothing stood out to me as being wrong, although I have no skill for the font design concerns here.To be honest, neither do I. I'm just making sure the glyphs match up and are categorized correctly, which is more an archival perspective than a design-based one. Thanks for giving it a look!
It looks like the majority of the red=contentious cells for shape notes are in the Walker shapes. I am not aware there is a living music tradition or community still using these or the Funk ones, as there is for Aiken and Sacred Harp. The value of Walker and Funk shapes would mainly be for reproducing historical works.Ah, that makes sense. In that case, I'll take a bit closer look at Funk's and Walker's source material and make sure the output is nice/consistent enough not to be too bothersome. That way, whenever a shape-note user does come along, if they spot mistakes, at least they'll be consistent and thus easy to work around.Therefore, I would say feel free to do whatever makes sense and results in usable fonts. There is unlikely to be many "normal" users with highly-specific concerns for Walker shapes. And if someone is doing a labor-of-love scholarly historical reproduction of a Walker-heads work, it is doubtful this project can foresee what they would care about without having such an expert available at this point.
You are reaching a point where I am starting to go, "Eh, if Owen Lamb studied and designed something for LilyPond fonts, it's probably fine."
That's very kind of you! However, I'm going to keep asking for advice. When I work on a project, I'll often miss some glaringly obvious detail, so I prefer to make sure everything checks out with fresh pairs of eyes.
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|