[smufl-discuss] Re: Some additions and other suggestions

[Emil B. Wojtacki]

Thank you, Daniel, for your response.

Some comments:
> At the moment, of course, there is a range for pre-composed stems, which
> references all of the individual symbols that can be superimposed on
> stems, but I have so far elected to keep those symbols that can be
> superimposed on stems in the ranges with similar techniques etc. for the
> instruments to which they apply.

OK. I just thought it could be more convenient for app developers, to
have the symbols that are placed in the same way, at one range.

> For what it's worth, at Joe's suggestion I have moved all glyphs that
> can be repeated/combined together to make larger objects (e.g.
> ornament strokes, trill/gliss. wiggles, etc.) to a single range, and
> have added the wavy lines etc. that you proposed in your previous set
> of proposed additions. These changes will be in 0.5.

I don't think it is a good idea to move the ornament strokes into the
multi-segments lines range. They work differently. In the case of trills
or arpeggiatos, it is the actual length of the line that is relevant,
despite of the number of segments (the number of segments has no textual
meaning). But with the  ornament strokes it is different: they are
quasi-text, and it makes a difference if the <ornament stroke 3> is
repeated 2 or 3 times, and the actual length of the symbol has no
textual meaning.


>> 4.Creating a new range for vertical positioning of noteheads in running
>> text (16 may be not enough, so I suggest 32)
> I'm not sure about this, or the use of further control characters in
> general. I haven't ruled out adding this range, but nor have I added it in
> 0.5.

It is about the usage in running text, but also (at least to some
extent) about the compatibility with existing solutions.


>> 5.In the figured bass range, the name for digit five with slash may be
>> misleading. I think the simple names like “Figured bass digit five with
>> slash” would be better. I also suggest to add two combining characters
>> for alterations: rising stroke and backslash (for diminished
> fifth/twelfth).
>
> I have added these suggested combining characters in SMuFL 0.5.

Thank you. I would like to maintain the suggestion to rename the fifth
with backslash: the symbol is not necessarily a raised fifth, it is used
(mostly?) for diminished fifth (even if there is no actual alteration).


> For SMuFL 0.5 I have elected to leave the existing Gregorian notation
> range alone. As you know, the range in SMuFL at present simply duplicates
> the glyphs that Perry added to the Unicode Musical Symbols range. I am not
> opposed to adding a wider range of glyphs in this range, but I think we
> would need some expert help to identify the correct set of glyphs to add.

OK. Perhaps I should add, that even with my suggestion, at least three
glyphs are still missing (small punctum inclinatum, and annotation
letters C and T, I have overseen them). The choice I suggested was based
on the choice of  Fr. Matthew Spencer OSJ, the author of the font
Caeciliae, and I have added two "strokeless" custodes supposing that a
scoring application that supports this notation, can draw the strokes in
the way it draws stems.

By the way: In the ornaments range, there are glyphs (oriscus, two
quilismae -- what is actually the difference between them, and why they
have names "3" and "4" while there is no "Quilisma 1"?) that seem to be
used solely for transcription of gregorian chant. Perhaps it would make
sense to move them to the Gregorian Chant range (or creating a range for
transcription of Gregorian Chant)? Additional glyphs for liquescentes in
modern notation would be then helpful, too.


> I have added a number of the symbols you have suggested in SMuFL 0.5.

Thank you.

> The ones I have chosen not to add at this time are:
>
> - Specific range of duplicate digits for ligated clefs (the existing range
> of digits for tuplets can be used instead)
Perhaps they would be redundant. However, I suggest adding control
characters for clef transpositions (above/below). (If you decide to
include codepoints for this kind of symbols).

> - Small noteheads for grace notes (I'm still considering how best to
> handle this requirement)

There is an additional argument for including them: they are sometimes
used for a detailed multiphonic notation (so it makes sense to have
glyphs for semibreve and breve, too), like here:
http://www.amuz.krakow.pl/docs/zych-bagatele-przyklad_nutowy.pdf (sx 2
in bar 11 and the same sound in the last bar on the page).


> - Symbols on beams

Well, one could use lines instead of proposed glyphs, but fixed glyphs
are much more convenient for part extraction. I think it is very similar
to the falls of a different length (one could use lines, but...).

> - Starting/ending strokes for ornaments
>
I think this is a question about SMuFL being a superset of Unicode.
Unicode supposes that ornaments are represented by the strings of short
elements. My intention is to support this way of representing ornaments
for more ornamental forms (like e.g. Schleifers in some rare forms). I
hope for some suggestions and comments from other members of the list.

By the way: I am not sure, if it makes sense to encode these Bachs'
cadences   - I think they are well represented by turns, and it may by
confusing for end-users that the same shapes are encoded twice (and
encoding the same glyphs twice does not help to input the music in a
semantically correct way). Similarly, Tremblement appuyé may be
represented by Turn up and sharp above.

And still, I kindly ask you to add codepoints for control characters for
placing accidentals above/below ornament and accidentals for ornaments.
I am sure, that at least some application developers (independent form
Uniscribe) will find it very useful (with a well-designed font one can
let the font shaping engine to make the job of placing the accidentals,
so just a single text object is required for a "double-altered" turn;
this, in turn, can simplify the implementation of correct behaviour when
transposing music containing ornaments with accidentals).

--
Emil Wojtacki




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