[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


From: Han-Wen Nienhuys
Subject: blot_diameter
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 18:28:09 +0100

address@hidden writes:
> According to the recent discussion about blot_diameter, I tried to fix
> all font symbols that I contributed so far.  Still, I do not fully
> understand the concept.  Does blot_diameter only apply to convex
> edges?  Does it only apply to the outline of a symbol?  Does the
> concept of blot_diameter imply that lines always must have a width of
> at least blot_diameter?  What about penrazors, penstrokes and all the
> other MetaFont constructs that typically produce sharp edges?

Good !  I've put in the patch, and, at the same time split out all
ancient entries into a separate font: tex fonts (and PS fonts as well)
can only have 256 glyphs. Almost half of the feta font was taken up by
the various ancient glyphs.

This means that all ancient notation files will be broken by the next
release. I'm not sure what the proper solution is for allocating the
glyphs. Maybe there should be separate font file for every "edition"
(i.e. feta-hufnagel, feta-medica, etc.), so you can do

   \property Voice. NoteHead  #'font-family = #'feta-hufnagel

to set ancient notation. This approach would also get rid of a lot of
conditional code for setting the glyph style. For now, the ancient
font is called parmesan.

In the passing I also noticed that two the noticeably rounded
characters (leger line and sharp) use bigger values for blotting
stroke (1.3 and 2.0 blot_diameter respectively). Since I like those
characters, probably one thing we should try is increasing


Han-Wen Nienhuys   |   address@hidden    |

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]