Re: SMuFL name mapping update, 8 September

[Owen Lamb]

Hi all,

Just wanted to give a quick half-update. I sent a message to the W3C 
mailing list about the rotated arpeggio glyphs, so that should move 
along soon.

I also discovered I'd missed a treasure trove of pre-encoded ornaments 
in SMuFL! Things are matching up quite nicely now. There's just one new 
contention in the Script section: LilyPond's `scripts.pralldown` doesn't 
*quite* match SMuFL's `ornamentPrecompTrillLowerSuffix`. Opinions are 
welcome on whether we should name ours something different.

I updated a bit of the text on the page so that a casual observer can be 
directed to the conversations happening here. Otherwise, nothing else is 
new.

See you all next time!
Owen

On 9/14/21 6:17 AM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> > > * About the rotated wiggle glyphs in Bravura: Do you have any idea
> > >    why this is so?  If not, can you please ask the SMuFL people?  It
> > >    looks definitely wrong to me!  They should either correct the
> > >    font or provide glyph name aliases for horizontal typesetting
> > >    (assuming that glyph names, once introduced, can't be changed any
> > >    longer).  [...]
> > I don't know... the SMuFL specs don't seem to say anything about it.
> > I'll message their list when I get the time.
> Thanks in advance!
>
> > > * In your table I don't see a Bravura glyph
> > >    `ornamentZigZagLineShortened`.  Is it really shortened that much
> > >    so that you no longer can see it? :-)
> > Nope! `ornamentZigZagLineShortened` is a name I thought up in lieu
> > of a SMuFL equivalent.  It's a limitation of my coloring system that
> > all contentious mappings, whether suggested new glyphs or existing
> > bravura glyphs, show up the same red color.
> Ah, ok.
>
> > Anyone object to calling it `ornamentZigZagLineAlt` until further
> > notice?
> This is fine with me.
>
>
>      Werner