[smufl-discuss] Re: "Music Enhanced Text Fonts" (Slightly OT)

[David Webber-2]

From: Daniel Spreadbury

>.... one of the use cases we identified
at the outset of the SMuFL project was to enable the use of musical
symbols in a text-based context. The current version of SMuFL in fact
defines a set of guidelines for glyph registration and font metrics for
making a SMuFL-compliant font intended for use in text-based applications,
and indeed the Bravura font family now includes a Bravura Text font as a
reference implementation of said guidelines.<

My apologies - I've let myself get behind the times with SMuFL  :-(

> It is not a requirement of a SMuFL-compliant font that the characters in
the basic Latin range should be provided, but equally there is no
impediment in the specification to doing so. <

This is a difference then: my 'Music Enhanced Text Fonts' are firmly rooted
in the Latin character set, as the whole point is to let you write things
like 'Bb Clarinet',  G#7b5.  (I'm not sure how notes and chords are referred
to in languages which use other scripts, but having the Latin alphabet is a
bare minimum for me.)

As for impediment: I worked quite hard to create a font which was usable
both for text and music, and succeeded by the skin of my teeth.   The
problem was satisfying the following set of desiderata:

1. Containing both text and music symbols
2. The music symbols scale on a 5 line staff which is the height of the
EM-square.
3. Text to be usable in simple text-based applications.
4. Music to be usable in a notation application.

Desideratum 2 means that when you ask for a 24pt font you get characters for
a 5-line staff which is 24 points high.
Desideratum 3 means that when you ask for 24pt text you should get 24 pt
text.

The problem then is the treble clef - the tallest symbol.   I don't have
separate clefs with 8's - I regard the clef and the 8 as separate symbols,
both philosophically and graphically.  The problem will be worse with a
treble clef plus and 8 as it is taller.    Anyway the Ascent and Descent
have to encompass a treble clef, so there is a it of ascent and descent
space,  and lines of text written with capitals (say) which are defined
within the EM-Square will have quite widely spaced lines to accommodate the
ascent and descent.

I can just about get away with it by making the capitals the height of the
EM-square.   So when you ask for a 24pt font in a text application you get
capitals which are 24 points high, but with quite a bit of line spacing.
This is not completely usual for text, (usually the requested font size
includes ascent and descent) but is just about within the range of
expectations.

Now for use within Mozart, I *could* relax point 2, and program the code to
make an allowance for the difference.   But it seems to me that in asking
for a 24pt music font, you are asking for a 24pt high 5 line staff.  (I
think you had the same idea independently and/or maybe that's what other
notation software defines too.)   So it felt inelegant to build some other
dimension into the font.   So at the moment I am living with the idea that
using my music font for text will be possible for single lines, and just
about possible for multiline text.  But I *will* be using it for chord names
like A7 (and in French La7) within the music.

> I wonder whether you would consider at least making your Music Enhanced
Text Fonts specification compatible with SMuFL by moving the glyphs from
U+E180 on upwards to their SMuFL code points? Naturally you're under no
obligation to do so, but it seems a shame to propose a standard that is so
neatly a subset of SMuFL and then strike out on your own with regard to
the code points you're using in the PUA.<

Now that I know that you are designing symbols for use in text, I shall
certainly consider this: I agree it would be useful.   I'll look into the
latest Bravura and revisit the spec, and see what can be done.

But if you don't require Latin characters, I'm a bit puzzled.   Windows in
particular is very clever/irritating - take your pick -  (and possibly other
OSs are).    If a symbol like U+266D (flat sign) is missing from the font
you're using, the OS supplies it from one which has it (if you have one).
Of course the style doesn't match the text font you're using (and the
extracted character probably has ridiculous bearings) and it stands out like
a sore thumb.  Which is why (see sample text at
<http://www.mozart.co.uk/downloads/fonts-music-enhanced-text.htm> we've gone
to the trouble of adding the music enhancements in the style of the text.
Adding them to a font which does not have the Latin character set would be a
pointless exercise.    But maybe you meant that if you add text-sized
accidentals you also expect text characters?

But I'll check out the latest Bravura

Dave

David Webber
Mozart Music Software
http://www.mozart.co.uk/

PS:   The code points I chose in the private use area, are compatible with
my own music font.  I have been developing my own Unicode music fonts for
the last 3 years or so - to get away from old symbol fonts - from before
SMuFL - certainly before I was aware of it.   In the early days of my
involvement here, I thought about trying to converge my code points on
SMuFL - but the (then) absence of the small clefs which I unequivocally
need - convinced me it was not urgent.  [SMuFL, from my point of view, still
(I believe) lacks black and white note-heads the size of grace notes, as
well as accidentals and quaver etc tails in matching size, so I'll still
have to reprogram all my grace-note-drawing code to use SMuFL fonts.]


#############################################################
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]>