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

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

dspreadbury
Administrator
Dave wrote:

> But none of that means I couldn't put the accidentals at SMuFL's code
> points, and I'm investigating that possibility.   In fact I've started
> looking at Bravura Text and I've already (I believe) found some oddities
in
> the symbols for chord names:
>
> E870, E871  (diminished and half-diminished)  sit on the base line. I'd
> have expected them to be raised, much like the degree symbol, to match
text
> in the form of B°7.

They're on the baseline because there are multiple conventions for their
alignment in chord symbols. Putting them on the baseline (and, it was
intended, at roughly the caps height, though that's not right at the
moment) means that they will be appropriately sized for the root note name
if the user desires them to appear on the baseline, and they can be made
superscript if the user prefers them smaller and raised from the baseline.
Making them raised and smaller in the font itself prevents their use on
the baseline.

> E873 (major 7th) is tiny!   It should surely be approximately at least
the
> size of an 'A' or maybe just a bit shorter?

I intended all of the symbols between E870 and E874 to have a consistent
height, roughly in line with the caps height, but I can see that in the
current version they are not appropriately scaled. I'll fix this before
the 1.0 release.

> E875-E878  (parentheses and brackets) are potentially enormous - much
taller
> than text with a caps height equal to the stave height - except that
they go
> well above the WinAscent and are therefore not readily usable.

These are intended to be roughly twice the caps height of a standard text
font, which they are.

> And a general comment: in the 'chord symbol range' I don't have separate

> brackets or parentheses, () []  but I do have a separate slash / which
SMuFL
> doesn't.   Is it worth SMuFL including a slash for chords like Eb7/G and

> C6/9 - eg at E87A?

SMuFL only encodes large parentheses that are unlikely to be present in
the text font used for the chord root and alteration, since it is assumed
that all glyphs required for chord symbols will come from a regular text
font, so hopefully the regular slash in the Latin set will suffice.

Daniel

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steinberg Media Technologies GmbH, Frankenstrasse 18b, D-20097 Hamburg, Germany
Phone: +49 (40) 21035-0 | Fax: +49 (40) 21035-300 | www.steinberg.net
President: Andreas Stelling | Managing Director: Hiroshi Sasaki, Hirofumi Osawa
Registration Court: Hamburg HRB 86534
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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