[smufl-discuss] Re: Registration of articulation glyphs

[dspreadbury]

Maurizio wrote:

> All articulation glyphs (U+E460 - U+E476) are VERTICALLY registered to
sit
> on the base line.
>
> 1) At least for "staccato" and "tenuto" (U+E461 - E462) and maybe other
> glyphs too, this might be inconvenient: if used inside a staff, they are
> vertically placed in the middle of the space right above or below the
note
> head (e.g.: in treble clef, C note in the 3rd space, either glyph should
be
> centred in the 4th space).
>
> Having them registered to sit on the base line requires computing their
> height to be able to centre them; also, different adjustments are needed
if
> placed above the note head or below. Of course, it can be done, but it
is
> perhaps an unnecessary complication: would it not be the case to centre
them
> on the base line?

On the subject of glyph registration I don't generally have any specific
axe to grind; it's easy enough for us to adapt the way we position glyphs
relative to each other to any reasonable set of guidelines, but I suspect
these kinds of changes have a rather greater potential impact on the
developers of more mature existing applications, so I wonder whether the
folks at MakeMusic, Noteflight et al would like to comment on this
proposal?

From my perspective, it doesn't seem to me that centering articulations
either on the x-axis or the y-axis on the baseline is a no-brainer: you
still have to measure the glyph to determine whether or not it fits within
a staff space (which is not guaranteed for all fonts), or how much space
needs to be left between the top or bottom of a note and the top or bottom
of the articulation, which cannot be a fixed distance for all
articulations.

> 2) For glyphs with an "above" and a "below" variant ("staccatissimo",
> "wedge", "marcato", ...), the current setup requires different
processing
> for the two variants. Again, it can be done, but is it really necessary?
> Having the "above" and "below" variant registered to be vertically
> symmetrical one to another wold surely simplify the usage of the font
(if
> the "above" variant sits on the base line, the "below" variant should
'hang'
> from it).

I like the logic of this suggestion, but again, I think we need to hear
from some other developers about what kind of impact this might have on
existing software. The current registration for these glyphs follows the
approach taken going as far back as e.g. Sonata.

> 3) They are also HORIZONTALLY registered to be on the right side of the
y
> axis. As they are almost all and always horizontally centred on the note
> head, having the glyphs centred around the y axis would again surely
> simplify their usage.

This seems like a reasonable idea, though it's also not difficult to
measure the width of a glyph and then move its x-position by half of its
width. More feedback from others in the community is needed, I think!

Thanks again for the suggestions,

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]>