Re: SMuFL name mapping update

[Owen Lamb]

Hi Werner,
> * Number sets: Since LilyPond uses the same glyphs for time
>    signatures, figured bass, and fingerings, we probably have to map
>    the Emmentaler glyphs to all SMuFL sets, irrespective of the size.
>    In general, I think that size issues are only to be considered if
>    the size matters *in context* (for example, '22' vs. '2²').  AFAICS,
>    this is not the case here.

That's what I thought at first. The issue is that SMuFL requires all 
glyphs to be scaled to the same unit staff space already. It doesn't ask 
notation programs to handle sizing on their own. If we were to map our 
current glyphs to all three number sets, we'd have non-LilyPond programs 
outputting comically large fingering and figured bass numbers by 
default. I personally think that leaving the smaller sets unassigned, 
letting programs handle the missing glyphs as they wish, is a far more 
graceful failure.

If we really don't want tofu, one solution I can think of is to give 
Emmentaler a second set of number glyphs, reusing the code that 
generates our current set, just at the proper smaller scale (taking into 
account stroke width, etc.). That new set can then be mapped to 
fingeringX and figbassX, leaving our current number set mapped to timeSigX.

> * Regarding the other accidentals: I think this deserves a discussion
>    with the SMuFL people; at least for me, the given SMuFL descriptions
>    don't suffice to come to final conclusions – maybe they have a
>    database with more information?

Good idea. I just sent a message to the public-music-notation mailing 
list at W3C.

Owen