Re: [smufl] Add symbol for three-quarters flat often used in Arabic notation

There are three ways we could approach meeting this requirement, and I
 invite comment from the community over which way would be preferred:

#### 1. Add the single missing three-quarters-tone flat accidental to 
an existing range.
We could add a single new glyph 
`accidentalThreeQuarterTonesFlatArabic` and add it to the [Other 
accidentals](https://w3c.github.io/smufl/gitbook/tables/other-accidentals.html)
 range, or to the [Turkish folk music 
accidentals](https://w3c.github.io/smufl/gitbook/tables/turkish-folk-music-accidentals.html)
 range, or indeed to the [Persian 
accidentals](https://w3c.github.io/smufl/gitbook/tables/persian-accidentals.html)
 range; in the case of either of the latter two ranges, we would 
presumably want to change the range name to include reference to the 
specifically Arabic nature of this additional glyph, e.g. **Turkish 
and Arabic accidentals** or **Persian and Arabic accidentals**.

#### 2. Add the six (or seven) accidentals used in this Arabic system 
to an existing range.
We could encode all six (or seven) of the accidentals used (i.e. 
`accidentalOneQuarterToneSharpArabic`, 
`accidentalThreeQuarterTonesSharpArabic`, 
`accidentalOneQuarterToneFlatArabic`, 
`accidentalThreeQuarterTonesFlatArabic`, `accidentalFlatArabic` and 
`accidentalSharpArabic` – along perhaps with a seventh 
`accidentalNaturalArabic`, which I would guess would be required as 
well) and add them to either the [Turkish folk music 
accidentals](https://w3c.github.io/smufl/gitbook/tables/turkish-folk-music-accidentals.html)
 range, or indeed to the [Persian 
accidentals](https://w3c.github.io/smufl/gitbook/tables/persian-accidentals.html)
 range, and, as with the first option, change the range names to 
reflect the addition of these Arabic accidentals.

#### 3. Define a new range for the six accidentals used in this Arabic
 system.
Finally, we could simply create a new range called e.g. **Arabic 
accidentals** and encode the six (or seven) symbols described in the 
second option into that new range.

For my part, I believe it makes sense to encode all of the accidentals
 that make up a complete system together, even if that means 
potentially duplicating forms that happen to be identical to symbols 
with similar functions in other ranges, since this gives font 
designers flexibility when it comes to designing a set of symbols to 
be used together without forcing them to make compromises in other 
areas because the same code point is shared by symbols with the same 
nominal appearance but potentially different functions.

As such, I prefer either option 2 or option 3. I think it would be 
good to group these accidentals together, but I need guidance from the
 community as to whether it would be appropriate or desirable to group
 them with Persian or Turkish accidentals, or to encode them in their 
own entirely separate range.

Please provide feedback!

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by dspreadbury
Please view or discuss this issue at 
https://github.com/w3c/smufl/issues/44#issuecomment-211997652 using 
your GitHub account

Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2016 16:07:35 UTC