[smufl-discuss] Re: Zero width sidebearings

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[smufl-discuss] Re: Zero width sidebearings

Knut Nergaard
Actually, this relates to another one of SMuFLs guidelines. I don't have them at hand, but I seem to remember there being a general rule about parenthesis having negative sidebearings. Whether this is appropriate or not depends on the spacing of other symbols in a given range, so a general rule to that effect might not be preferable.

Knut Nergaard
Thor Olsens gt. 6 A
N-0177 Oslo
Tel: +4798485750

Den 12. mai 2015 kl. 10:35 skrev Knut Nergaard <[hidden email]>:



Knut Nergaard
Thor Olsens gt. 6A
N-0177 OSLO
Tel: +47 984 85 750

12. mai 2015 kl. 01:03 skrev Daniel Spreadbury <[hidden email]>:

Daniel wrote:

Yes, I agree that this is too close. So you are proposing, then, that we allow discretionary left- and right-hand side bearings for glyphs in the following ranges:

– Time signatures
– Figured bass
– Function theory symbols
– Time signatures supplement

There might be an argument to be made for extending this policy to the individual letter glyphs (m, a, v, b, plus the digits 8, 15, 22) in the "Octaves supplement" range.


Yes, and I would include these categories as well:

– Tuplets
– Chord Symbols
– Dynamics (at least the individual ones unless this creates a problem with correct vertical placement.

Actually, it might be better to make a general comment in the guidelines that any text og number glyphs meant to be entered in sequences (like text) or in line with a text font exclusively should not necessarily have zero width sidebearings (but you should definitely come up with a better wording than that).

Knut