Re: SMuFL Bravura

[Urs Liska]

Am 1. April 2019 20:07:47 MESZ schrieb Malte Meyn <address@hidden>:
>
>
>Am 01.04.19 um 12:01 schrieb Johan Vromans:
>> On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 09:17:26 +0200, Malte Meyn <address@hidden>
>wrote:
>> 
>>> SMuFL integration and using Metafont for glyph creation don’t
>>> contradict, do they?
>> 
>> They do, in so far that with limited resources you cannot do both.
>
>[sending on-list, sorry Johan for the double post]
>
>What do you mean by “limited resources”? A lack of manpower? I don’t 
>think it’s a real problem:
>
>“In order for a font to be considered SMuFL-compliant, it should 
>implement as many of the recommended characters as are appropriate for 
>the intended use of the font, at the specified code points. Fonts need 
>not implement every recommended character, and need not implement any 
>optional glyphs, in order to be considered SMuFL-compliant.” (SMuFL 
>specification 
>https://w3c.github.io/smufl/gitbook/about/recommended-chars-optional-glyphs.html)
>
>I think that means that Emmentaler could be made SMuFL-compliant
>without 
>having to add any characters: The intended use of Emmentaler is to work
>
>with LilyPond as it will have done before SMuFL-compliance. Of course, 
>once this is done, additions can be made. But there is no need of new 
>Metafont code for SMuFL-compliance so I don’t think we should abandon 
>Metafont.
>

I fully agree with all of that, but I think what Johan wanted to say is that we 
should *first* work towards DMuFL compliance before spending manpower on 
Emmentaler extensions.
Which I think is true and not. If there is someone willing to spend efforts 
adding stuff to Emmentaler that's a great thing and shouldn't be discouraged 
because we have even more pressing things to do.

Urs

>_______________________________________________
>lilypond-user mailing list
>address@hidden
>https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user