[smufl-discuss] Re: U+E870 - U+E8AF: Mensural and Renaissance notes

[dspreadbury]

Maurizio wrote:

> The "Medieval and Renaissance individual notes" range (U+E890 – U+E8AF)
> appropriately and usefully distinguishes between black notation and
white
> notation and even includes the black notes with coloration; however it
lacks
> the white /semibrevis/ and all the white notes with coloration.

If you can provide me with a specific list of missing symbols, ideally
with some kind of source that shows me how they appear, then I would be
happy to consider adding them.

For what it's worth, the list of symbols included in this range was
specified by Myke Cuthbert, a professor at MIT and early music expert,
based on what he felt would be useful to be encoded. I am not an early
music specialist, so I am happy to be guided by experts in the field. If
you have a specific proposal for how SMuFL should be amended, please share
it.

> Thus, I would like to understand if the principle behind this section is
> semantic or visual.

Generally speaking the primary concern is to collect the different visual
symbols needed, rather than necessarily to encode their semantics as well.
But there are plenty of places in SMuFL where we have encoded the same
symbol with different semantic meanings, because it is better for font
designers to be able to alter the appearance of each instance of these
symbols differently for different purposes.

> The "Medieval and Renaissance noteheads and stems" range (U+E870–U+E88F)
> lacks the distinction between black and white notation (and the concept
of
> coloration) and seems to go only by the visible look of notation
elements.
>
> Is this an explicit decision? Is semantics consciously ignored in this
> section?

You are correct that the "white notation" noteheads are not included in
the "Medieval and Renaissance noteheads and stems" range, which could
certainly be rectified. Again, it would be useful to see a specific
proposal for which additional symbols should be encoded in this range.

Thanks for your feedback,

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]>

[Maurizio M. Gavioli]

dspreadbury wrote

If you can provide me with a specific list of missing symbols, ideally with some kind of source that shows me how they appear, then I would be happy to consider adding them.

For what it's worth, the list of symbols included in this range was specified by Myke Cuthbert, a professor at MIT and early music expert, based on what he felt would be useful to be encoded. I am not an early music specialist, so I am happy to be guided by experts in the field. If you have a specific proposal for how SMuFL should be amended, please share it.

I'm sure prof. Cuthbert does not need any help in this field! (and from me last of all...) Possibly, however, some guide lines (explicit or implied) about the level of detail or the total list size might have influenced his (surely grounded) choices. It is these guide lines that I'm trying to understand.

Generally speaking the primary concern is to collect the different visual symbols needed, rather than necessarily to encode their semantics as well. But there are plenty of places in SMuFL where we have encoded the same symbol with different semantic meanings, because it is better for font designers to be able to alter the appearance of each instance of these symbols differently for different purposes.

So, it is also a matter of "case by case". Which, generally speaking, makes a lot of sense: encoding everything the human ingenuity has brought for in, say, 12 centuries of history of Western music could exceed a whole Unicode plan!

Again, it would be useful to see a specific proposal for which additional symbols should be encoded in this range.

Thank you for your trust. If possible, I'll try to put together two hypotheses: one minimal, more visually oriented, including only distinct shapes and one larger, more semantically oriented, with more distinctions. Then the 'committee' could choose, also taking into account the available space in the 'large picture'.

I'll also try to provide examples: in principle, there is no lack of them on line, but looking for specific -- maybe less frequent -- shapes may take some time. Is there any time frame?

Thanks again,

Maurizio