- From: Daniel Spreadbury <D.Spreadbury@steinberg.de>
- Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 00:01:19 +0100
- To: Erik Ronström <erik@ompom.se>
- Cc: public-music-notation-contrib@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF78F1A509.E35EF279-ONC125826B.007DD6E7-8025826B.007E76DE@LocalDomain>
Erik wrote: > Not that it is a big issue, but it just seems a bit curios to me: a lot of work has obviously > been put into the SMuFL specification and it is generally very consistent in glyph registration > and how glyphs relate to the font baseline and horizontal origin. Thus it is a bit surprising > that the cut-outs don’t follow the same logic. We tried to be pragmatic more than we tried to be consistent, if you see what I mean. You're right that most applications would be able to handle cut-outs being relative to the glyph origin rather than the bottom left-hand corner of the glyph, but we chose that approach based on community discussion and the sense that the glyph bbox would be easier to get hold of in a wider variety of APIs, and my personal feeling is that there's not enough to gain by proposing changing this now, though perhaps to date the only application to have actually implemented the use of cut-outs to any great degree is Dorico, so it might not inconvenience a huge number of implementers. (It would inconvenience us, though!) So I think we should leave things as they are, but if you strongly feel that the community should consider a change in this area, please do raise an issue at https://www.github.com/w3c/smufl/issues/ and we can discuss it for the future. Thanks! Daniel From: Erik Ronström <erik@ompom.se> To: Daniel Spreadbury <D.Spreadbury@steinberg.de> Cc: public-music-notation-contrib@w3.org Date: 09/04/2018 13:21 Subject: Re: Cut-outs > We use the glyph bounding box because it is typically simple to get hold of in whatever API you might be using to gather information about the glyph. Not all APIs seem to provide more detailed access to glyph metrics, whereas the bounding box appears to be pretty universally available. I see, but wouldn’t the glyph origin be even simpler to â€get hold ofâ€, always being [0, 0]? :) Not that it is a big issue, but it just seems a bit curios to me: a lot of work has obviously been put into the SMuFL specification and it is generally very consistent in glyph registration and how glyphs relate to the font baseline and horizontal origin. Thus it is a bit surprising that the cut-outs don’t follow the same logic. Erik - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Phone: +49 (40) 21035-0 | Fax: +49 (40) 21035-300 | www.steinberg.net President: Andreas Stelling | Managing Director: Thomas Schöpe, Yoshiyuki Tsugawa Registration Court: Hamburg HRB 86534 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Received on Tuesday, 10 April 2018 23:01:57 UTC