[smufl-discuss] Re: Registration of time signature glyphs (Was: Glyph registration proposal)

[dspreadbury]

Excuse the funky quoting below, but the various mailers folks are using
have made a bit of a meal of this thread! Hopefully this is somewhat
clearer.

[Emil:]
> > > TIME SIGNATURES
> > > For the handwritten fonts with protrusions you mention, I would
> > > suggest that the digits are supposed to be primarily  numerators (so
> > > they are positioned still on the 4th line), and the additional
> > > metadata file stores the value for the proper leading (expressed in
> > > staff spaces).

[Joe:]

> > I am planning for the metadata file to provide enough information
> > on t/s digits that the current baseline approach (actually, pretty
> > much any baseline approach) would be adequate. I don't see any way
> > to dodge the need for additional metadata if we are to allow
> > arbitrary-height digits.  I would expect this data to include:
> >
> > - recommended baseline placement for numerator digits relative to
> > staff center line
> > - recommended baseline placement for denominator digits relative
> > to staff center line

[Emil:]
> With my suggestion, there would be just one value to store in the
> metadata file (the vertical offset of denominator digits), assuming that

> the entire time signature is always to be centred to the middle of the
> staff.

[Daniel:]
I don't have any real practical objection to this. It seems immaterial to
me whether the digits are positioned on the baseline and the time
signature text object centered around the middle line of the staff
(assuming fixed leading of two staff spaces) or the digits centered on the
baseline and the time signature text object centered around the line above
the middle line of the staff.

Since existing music fonts center the digits on the baseline, that's
reason enough for me to accept the recommendation that time signature
glyphs should be centered on the baseline, with the external metadata file
containing information about the offset for numerators and denominators
and recommended leading for fonts with unconventionally-sized time
signature glyphs.

[Emil:]
> > > I am tempted to suggest, that perhaps C and ¢ should be
> > > positioned so, that they are placed correctly if font baseline is
> > > aligned to the centre of 4th line.

[Joe:]
> > Under the new approach to clef-like symbols (which these are, in a
> > layout sense), such symbols should be centered on the font baseline
> > since by default they "apply" to the center line of a staff. They
> > are not t/s digits.

[Emil:]
> I just think about drawing time signatures by apps (perhaps it is easier

> to draw all the time signatures using the same position of the text
> object). There is also an issue with alla breve symbol mixed with
> "fractions", like for alternating time signatures, and with parentheses,

> e.g. ¢ (4/2). But I agree that they should be centred on the font
baseline.

[Daniel:]
This seems uncontroversial, too: all glyphs for time signatures should be
centered on the baseline -- but perhaps with the exception of those glyphs
that really should be centered on the staff, such as the full-height
parentheses, the + and x signs?

Daniel

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steinberg Media Technologies GmbH, Frankenstrasse 18b, D-20097 Hamburg, Germany
Phone: [phone] | Fax: [phone] | www.steinberg.net
Managing Director: Andreas Stelling, Kazunori Kobayashi
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]>