Re: Proposal for new MusicXML 3.1 glyph element

Forwarded with Daniel's approval as this was intended for the entire list…

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: "Daniel Spreadbury" <D.Spreadbury@steinberg.de>
> Subject: Re: Proposal for new MusicXML 3.1 glyph element
> Date: October 3, 2016 at 12:54:21 PM PDT
> To: Michael Good <mgood@makemusic.com>
> 
> Michael Good <mgood@makemusic.com> wrote on 03/10/2016 17:49:52:
> 
> > What do you think? Does handling these glyphs in the appearance 
> > element make sense? Or do you think we do need to handle each glyph 
> > in a score individually? If there are examples of where different 
> > types of glyphs for the same semantics are combined in a single 
> > musical score, could you please reference them? Is there a different
> > way to approach these issues than the two solutions mentioned here?
> 
> This sounds like an appropriately pragmatic approach to me. In my research on these specific glyphs as part of the SMuFL work, the idea that these glyphs would not be mixed within the same edition was certainly supported by the usage we found in actual publications. I think therefore that a good general approach to encoding different appearances for semantically identical symbols would be to use the <appearance> element.
> 
> Daniel
> 
> 
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
> 
> Steinberg Media Technologies GmbH, Frankenstrasse 18b, D-20097 Hamburg, Germany
> 
> Phone: +49 (40) 21035-0 | Fax: +49 (40) 21035-300 | www.steinberg.net
> 
> President: Andreas Stelling | Managing Director: Thomas Schöpe, Hirofumi Osawa
> 
> Registration Court: Hamburg HRB 86534
> 
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -