On 14 Nov 2014, at 18:05, Joseph Berkovitz wrote:
>> (Maybe this is expecting too much of a mere font. Where should the line be drawn?)
>
> To me, at least, the needs being expressed in this thread (center points in time signatures, formation of chords) begin to cross the line into asking SMuFL to do too much for developers.
Yes, but we're not talking about SMuFL per se, but about Bravura, and Bravura Text specifically, a particular font example that's by definition meant for text settings, so having as much layout as possible done at the font level is actually a desirable thing.
> I believe our main mission with SMuFL is to support the use of interchangeable fonts by notation applications, with the expectation that these applications will need to programmatically position glyphs to achieve reasonable results using the metadata provided. Regardless of what we do for one edge case or another, this requirement will still exist for many fundamental aspects of conventional Western music notation. If we begin to require all kinds of ligatures and character groups to make the font itself “smarter”, we’ll be creating more and more effort for all future SMuFL font creators, but we won’t be enabling notation applications to go anywhere they couldn’t already go.
Here again, particular font-level tricks that help achieve the best layout possible in a given scenario have nothing to do with the character repertory or recommendations of the SMuFL specification itself. It's more like Unicode versus the different font-level approaches that solve the Unicode-imposed issues.
Regards,
Grzegorz Rolek
#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
the mailing list <
[hidden email]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <
[hidden email]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <
[hidden email]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <
[hidden email]>
Send administrative queries to <
[hidden email]>
Locked
