From: Doug Ewell (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Sep 06 2005 - 10:03:29 CDT
Marnen Laibow-Koser <marnen at marnen dot org> wrote:
>>> 1. If the reference glyph for MULTI-REST is changed, I fear that it
>>> will break existing fonts and documents.
>> Do documents really use the appearance, and not the name of the
>> character ?
> I'm not sure I understand your question, but what I meant was this.
> It is possible that some fonts (and documents) have already been
> created where the implementers took a look at the Standard, said "ah,
> the 'MULTI-REST' is really a double whole rest", and went ahead and
> used it as such. If we change the normative reference glyph for
> MULTI-REST, it will indeed bring it in line with the name, but it may
> produce backward-incompatible encoding.
Especially in the case of these musical symbols, which (like other
graphical symbols) don't really follow the character-glyph model in the
same sense as orthographic letters, it seems likely that at least some
implementations have used them based on their appearance, rather than on
the underlying semantic implied by the character name. After all, as we
have pointed out many times -- often in defense -- character names are
meant primarily for identification, and might not reflect the actual
-- Doug Ewell Fullerton, California http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Sep 06 2005 - 10:04:56 CDT