[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Unicode cuteness
From: |
Werner LEMBERG |
Subject: |
Re: Unicode cuteness |
Date: |
Mon, 15 Mar 2010 20:50:01 +0100 (CET) |
>>> For selfdescribing glyphs, is the following somewhat defensive
>>> approach sensible, or should 𝄞 be equivalent to the whole \clef
>>> "G" sequence?
>>>
>>> If the latter, it would need modifying the parser, right? That
>>> would have the advantage that note lengths like 𝅘𝅥𝅰 could also be
>>> employed, pitches written like B𝄫, rests including length as 𝄽,
>>> and other niceties.
>>
>> I'm not a big fan of moving in this direction; your emails with
>> unicode included don't render properly on my email client.
>
> Nor mine. So I can't even understand the point you are trying
> to make.
Actually, I like David's patch. It doesn't do any harm, and if
someone prefers to use it, it's there.
Werner
- Unicode cuteness, David Kastrup, 2010/03/15
- Re: Unicode cuteness, Valentin Villenave, 2010/03/15
- Re: Unicode cuteness, John Mandereau, 2010/03/15
- Re: Unicode cuteness, David Kastrup, 2010/03/16
- Re: Unicode cuteness, Reinhold Kainhofer, 2010/03/16