[smufl-discuss] Re: Private use area?

[dspreadbury]

Emil wrote:

> I would not call it "special status", it is just a status of a basic
> symbol. The number of solutions *is* a problem. It equals the loose in
> compatibility: font designers will address needs of different apps --
> let me quote --  "in an uncoordinated and haphazard fashion, leading to
> significant inconsistencies"...

I don't think this constitutes a significant inconsistency! If anything, I
am trying to *avoid* a significant inconsistency by not introducing an
arbitrary selection of glyphs drawn at a different size.

> By the way: the problem of stylistic alternates is more complex. Should
> they be designed so, that:
>    (1) the intended appearance is achieved at the same font size, or
rather
>    (2) that they have proper size after scaling down to, say, 72%?
> The second solution is counter-intuitive, as the glyph, which is
> intended to appear as smaller,  will be thicker than the base glyph in
> the font (due to optical corrections). However, it is much safer for the

> case, when there are no alternates in the font-- apps can always perform

> scaling, without checking the presence of a special glyph/set).

My understanding of how optical sizes work is that they are drawn at the
same actual size, so a character at 20pt is the same effective size
regardless of which optical size it is intended for; however, a character
intended to be drawn at a smaller size will appear bolder at 20pt than the
character intended to be drawn at a larger size at that same point size.
So this is the approach I have taken for the stylistic alternates in
Bravura: they are drawn at the same size as the normal glyphs, but will
have the same optical stroke thickness as said normal glyphs when drawn at
75% of the size.

An application that wishes to use Bravura can do so without ever knowing
about the existence of those stylistic alternates: it can simply draw the
normal clef glyph (or the normal accidental glyph, or whatever) at
whatever size it wants. Obviously effective stroke thicknesses will be
reduced when scaling a glyph down to a much smaller size, but that is true
of all fonts, music or otherwise, that do not provide optical sizes.

> It is about just four codepoints. Please reconsider them. Just to avoid
> building fonts "in an uncoordinated and haphazard fashion, leading to
> significant inconsistencies".

I do try to build SMuFL based on community consensus, so let's try to
establish consensus on this issue once and for all. I will send another
message outlining the possible options, and we'll give everybody in the
community the chance to express an opinion via a simple vote.

Daniel

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steinberg Media Technologies GmbH, Frankenstrasse 18b, D-20097 Hamburg, Germany
Phone: [phone] | Fax: [phone] | 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]>