Re: Unicode cuteness

[David Kastrup]

Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> writes:

>>>> 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.

Well, the "doesn't do any harm" is not completely right: bug reports
using this input syntax will be equally unreadable to some people as my
patch has been.

On the web, this looks like
<URL:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.lilypond.devel/28039>.

It probably depends on the fonts on the system (and these are probably
rather newfangled) but it would appear that those on my system currently
are zero-width and thus somewhat ugly to read.

If your browser supports utf-8, such error reports might be reasonably
readable using the web interfaces.

When fixing problems with Hebrew and other lyrics, it is already hard to
avoid having appropriate Unicode fonts installed.

-- 
David Kastrup