From: Daniel Spreadbury
> I can't speak to the actual evolution of Unicode, but I think at least the
possibility exists that this is a function of the fact that the font
technology to provide things like ligatures, swashes and so on without
requiring separate code points was not available when the basic Unicode
mapping was done. But, either way, this is indeed how Unicode handles the
two forms of lower case "s".
Unicode is a convention for providing fonts, which is quite independent of
'font technology'. There is not even an assumption that the font will be
scalable as far as I'm aware, and at the basic level it doesn't even assume
that any particular number of bytes will be used to store a character, (but
offers different options UTF8, UTF16 UTF32 at a level one higher than the
collection of code points).
The objective is simply to enable you to write (eg) multilingual text
without having to change fonts or font styles.
I'd have thought therefore that the objective for SMuFL would be to enable
you to write music (at a given size and style) without having to change
fonts or font styles. But it seems that you're telling me that this is
not the objective?
> SMuFL is explicitly designed to be a superset of the Unicode Musical
Symbols range, so those grace note glyphs are included, even though I
believe I have written (and if I have not, I will) in the implementation
notes section on that page of the document that scoring applications
should not use those precomposed glyphs to draw grace notes any more than
they should use precomposed glyphs to draw any other kinds of notes.<
I am happy with the recommendation not to use precomposed glyphs. But I
*would* like a grace note heads, grace-note-sized accidentals, and
grace-note tail flags so I don't have to select the font at another size to
draw grace notes.
> And I don't regard "Mozart does it like that" as a definitive
counter-argument either :^)
I am trying hard not to make that argument. However I have been supplying
TrueType fonts for Mozart under Windows since v1 first came out in 1994
(when Sibelius was still on Acorn computers), and it would seem a shame to
base my comments here on something other than what I have found to work very
well (for carefully thought-out reasons) for the last 20 years.
Nothing I have suggested would detract in any way from Sibelius and Finale.
Dave
David Webber
Mozart Music Software
http://www.mozart.co.uk/
#############################################################
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
