RE: Augmentation dots

Brilliant – thanks.   And thanks for such a prompt reply.  As ever, now I know where it is, I’m wondering how I missed it!

So a couple of further questions:  

1.  In my own fonts I also have a “double dot” and a “triple dot” as separate individual glyphs.  Now obviously they’re not 100% necessary as one could just draw a single dot two or three times.   But I do find them convenient.  Would it be worth adding “double dot”, and “triple dot” as extra glyphs to the SMuFL spec?

 

2. Is there an area in the SMuFL codepoints spec (somwhere within the “private  use area”)  which is deliberately reserved by SMuFL for font authors to add their own symbols?    Analogous to the “Private Use” area of the Unicode spec?    If not, would it be useful reserving such an area?

The reason I ask is that I have in my own fonts, AFAICT, one or two glyphs which are not part of the SMuFL set.    The above are a case in point and others are “non-printing control characters” which I wouldn’t necessarily expect to be part of a standard set of musical symbols.  I’m trying to redefine my codepoints in line with SMuFL (as a first step to SMuFL compliance)  and it would be useful to have somewhere to put them before I have to think about alternatives.



Dave

 

David Webber
Mozart Music Software
http://www.mozart.co.uk

 

 

 

 

From: Jeremy Sawruk <jeremy.sawruk@gmail.com> 
Sent: 20 October 2019 15:49
To: dave@mozart.co.uk
Cc: public-music-notation-contrib@w3.org
Subject: Re: Augmentation dots

 

U+E1E7 (augmentationDot)?

 

https://w3c.github.io/smufl/gitbook/tables/individual-notes.html

 

On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 10:46 AM <dave@mozart.co.uk <mailto:dave@mozart.co.uk> > wrote:

Can anyone tell me where to find note augmentation dots in the SMuFL codepoint spec?  (I’ve found the dots that go on repeat bar lines, but I’d have expected other glyphs to represent dots going after notes, and, maybe it’s just me, but I can’t find them.)

 

Dave

 

David Webber
Mozart Music Software
http://www.mozart.co.uk