[smufl-discuss] Re: MusicXML and SMuFL

[George Litterst]

Good morning, everyone.

Thank you for your reply, Michael. This level of integration sounds terrific.

Out of musical curiosity, I would be interested in some citations for 1024th notes and 512th notes from the common practice period if you have any handy. I am not challenging the need for them, but I am curious about what you may have encountered. If nothing else, such pieces would provide good material for creating test files.

I hope that you'll share with the MusicXML and SMuFl lists the missing MusicXML characters that you intend to provide to Daniel. That will be helpful to the rest of us. Also, I think that many of us would be interested in your personal suggestions for a comprehensive, named list of ornaments if you have already created one.

Lastly, if you already have a tentative list of font characters from SMuFL that you think deserve priority consideration for the next version of MusicXML, that would be another interesting list to see and discuss if you are willing.

Thank you for all that you have done for the music community!

Regards,
George

On Jun 6, 2013, at 2:43 AM, Good, Michael wrote:

> Hi George,
>
> Yes, Mark has incorporated MusicXML needs into his extended font. His
> suggestions on the SMuFL list cover most of what is missing from SMuFL 0.4
> that is present in MusicXML 3.0. There's also support for 1024th notes and
> rests: an outlier, but still found in repertoire of the common practice
> period. I still owe Daniel a list of font characters to fill MusicXML 3.0
> gaps, and hope to be able to send that soon.
>
> The next step would come with adding support in a future version of
> MusicXML to fill that SMuFL gaps for common Western music notation. One
> thing that will help there is if each character in SMuFL has a distinct
> semantic label. Daniel's already mentioned the need for this in other
> discussions, but there are still some characters like ornaments where this
> hasn't yet happened. There's no one perfect name as meanings change for
> symbols over time, composer, and geography, but an adequate distinct name
> is better than a more general name that duplicates others. This is true
> both for learning what SMuFL fonts do, and for referencing SMuFL in other
> places such as MusicXML.
>
> I'm copying the MusicXML list on this since it's relevant to both groups,
> though it's a reply to a discussion on the SMuFL list.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Michael Good
> MakeMusic, Inc.
>
>> On 6/5/13 9:26 AM, "George Litterst" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> In addition, I would like to express the opinion that I hope that Mark's
>>> colleague at MakeMusic, Michael Good, is working closely with him so
>>> that the font issues and MusicXML issues are being resolved in a
>>> cooperative manner.
>
>
>
> #############################################################
> 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]>
>

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