|
From: | lilypond |
Subject: | Re: [Lilypond-auto] Issue 4014 in lilypond: Patch: Add an expert font tree interface |
Date: | Sun, 27 Jul 2014 04:10:54 +0000 |
Comment #13 on issue 4014 by address@hidden: Patch: Add an expert font tree interface
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=4014On 23/07/14 17:18, Alexander Kobel wrote:> On 07/24/2014 01:08 AM, Alexander Kobel wrote:
https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=4014 ?
On the other hand, I actually don't know if it is correct when I say: "the Pango description string for the font, which is passed as-is to the Pango interface". Is this Pango? Is it fontconfig? Is it correct that `fc-match <string>` will tell me what `(make-expert-font-tree '((... <string>)) ...)' will do, or almost, but not quite? I'm kinda lost there myself.
Oh, and I forgot one: Is it an expected and supported behaviour that I'm "allowed" to advertise that you can introduce new lily-family symbols ('markup and 'condensed in the example, but I could think of, e.g., 'lyrics, 'header, 'chords or 'mark to be useful)? Or is it rather an unexpected feature (aka. bug) that might vanish at some point? I assume that it's safe to use, but I'm not sure. And if yes, should we also implement a mapping between "logical" and "physical" lily-families (similar to structural markup vs. direct markup in Latex or HTML)? Like, per default, 'lyrics -> 'roman 'header -> 'roman 'chords -> 'sans 'url -> 'typewriter and the user may add a 'condensed family and re-map 'lyrics to 'condensed. Or is this overkill, and we should stick to the one-layer strategy we already have?
Best, Alexander
--You received this message because this project is configured to send all issue notifications to this address.
You may adjust your notification preferences at: https://code.google.com/hosting/settings
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |