Peter wrote:
> I tend to agree with David and Alex about the need of having smaller
> clefs. There's also another reason to include them (among those
> already mentioned). When application uses the same glyphs but reduces
> them, the thinner lines might simply disappear. Actually that was the
> reason why you've introduced version of standard accidentals with
> enforced thin lines, for use in smaller sizes. To be able to use the
> same approach in application it might be very valuable to have
> separate set of clefs for use in smaller sizes too.
I agree about the importance of providing a solution for stopping strokes
getting anaemically thin at small sizes. That is why Bravura, for example,
contains such alternate glyphs for the most common clefs; but this is
entirely left to the discretion of the font designer.
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 / Managing Director: Andreas Stelling
Managing Director: Kazunori Kobayashi, Hiroshi Sasaki
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]>
Locked
