> Mark
>
>> . The problem with having 2/3-size clefs as separate codepoints is
> that "Unicode does not encode glyphs"; it encodes characters. If it
> functions as a G-clef, it's a G-clef regardless of the size or design.
> Daniel is right that scaled-down clefs need to be character
> alternates.
>
> Perhaps it is just a question of assigning a different character name
> to full size clefs and 2/3 size clefs. For instance, we have upper
> case A letter and lower case A letter. Both are A letter but they are
> two different characters. The same can be done with clefs: for
> instance, "Upper G clef" (full size) and "Lower G clef" (2/3 size).
> Could this be a solution?
>
> Cecilio Salmeron
Important point and you’re right, Unicode encodes characters not glyphs.
But there are no lower case clefs, so that won’t be a solution. Those clefs
are just smaller versions. There are smaller versions of upper case letters
in text fonts, i.e. small caps or, even smaller, petite caps. Small cap letters
don’t have an own codepoint (obviously because they are basically lower
case letters with the shape of upper case ones, just smaller with an adjusted
contrast).
That’s where a standard needs to have a naming convention for smaller
versions of encoded characters.
An example how this works in text fonts
A is named A (uni0041)
a is named a (uni0061)
small cap lower case
a.sc or a.smcp (no codepoint)
petite cap lower case
a.pcap (no codepoint)
Florian Fecher
FLORIAN
FECHER
‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧
Huttenstraße 26
97072 Würzburg
[hidden email]
twitter.com/grautesk
‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧
#############################################################
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
