Re: Unicode cuteness

[Carl Sorensen]

On 3/15/10 12:50 PM, "Werner LEMBERG" <address@hidden> wrote:

>>>> 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.

I'm OK with that, but I still have the concern of documenting it.
What do we need to do to make sure that the documentation works properly?

Thanks,

Carl