Hi Daniel,
Congratulations on the continuing progress of SMuFL towards a 1.0 release!
I saw one nit in 0.99. The second paragraph in the "Metadata for SMuFL
glyphs and ranges" section on page 22 still has the old information
strongly recommending references to glyphs by name rather than buy Unicode
code point because SMuFL code points may change. I'd recommend changing
this language to match that on page 18, or deleting the entire paragraph
to remove redundancy with the page 18 material.
Best regards,
Michael Good
MakeMusic, Inc.
#############################################################
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]>
Locked
