[smufl-discuss] Re: Glyph Registration and Graphical Metadata

[David Webber]

From: Mark Johnson

David sed:
>> (b) They're very quick for font designers to produce - just copy the main
>> one and
>> change size to 75% or whatever.

>That is exactly why there is no point in multiple-encoding them! If
you want scaled glyphs, it's cheaper and SO much less confusing to
just use the font in a different size the way current software has
been doing for decades.

1. As Daniel said - ther's a performance hit.
2. I'm sorry you don't regard Mozart (v1 released 1994) as 'current
software'.   I'm beginning to realise we're designing fonts for Sibelius and
Finale.
3. The same argument says that text software should write a lower case 's'by
modifying the upper case version.

> To me the whole point of having smaller
change-clefs as alternate glyphs is so they can be designed, like
small caps, with strokes comparable to the full-size glyphs, not
merely scaled.<

Of course they can if the font author wishes.

> Small caps were separate fonts in PostScript days, but now in OpenType
they are usually an alternate style in the same font, as Daniel has
been saying.

I'm not imagining reducing every symbol, as discussed with Daniel.  The cue
ntes (them selves containing two clef sizes might be considered the closes
analogy of 'small caps', and as others have said there's a danger in
designing fonts for specific rendering technologies.

> The analogy {full-size clef : smaller clef-change ::
capital A : lowercase a} is weak. The clefs have the same form; the
letters do not.

Some letters do.  And I'm not asking for the whole alphabet.  It's a perfect
analogy.

> A clef change has the same function as a clef on the
left side: setting the pitch on the staff.

Not really.   The first clef on the left initialises the relationship, later
ones are just reminders (often omitted in jazz charts), and the clef change
changes it.   The letters S in 'Susan' are the same letter.

>Capital and lowercase
letters have many different functions, one of which is semantic
distinction (the others are typographical). And where Unicode has
small cap letters as separate codepoints, they are for non-alphabetic
functions – IPA and other phonetic extensions.<

???

>Having separate glyphs for clef sizes is part of the larger issue of
optical sizing. Large OpenType families nowadays have 3 or 4 optical
sizes as separate fonts. As far as I know there is still not a
standard automated method of choosing appropriate optical sizes. I
want SMuFL to set (or at least suggest) a standard method for optical
sizing in music (and of course the new software to the be the first to
implement it). This is why we must define the character set right the
first time. Style alternates vs. more codepoints = vertical vs.
horizontal; I'm for the former.<

Style alternatives are fine for style alternatives: but there are two
versions of the clefs used in music, just as there are two versions of the
letter 's' in 'Susan'.

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]>