Re: SMuFL name mapping update, 9 July

[Owen Lamb]

Hi Karlin,

> 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.
>
> 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.
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.
> 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.

Owen