From: Mark E. Shoulson (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Sep 06 2005 - 10:11:51 CDT
Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote:
> 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.
I don't think the Western Musical Notation section of Unicode has seen
all that much usage yet anyway. (Maybe I just don't know enough about
it, but I don't even see how you distinguish tones with Unicode, as
opposed to note lengths). It's likely safe to make the "right" change
and fix the reference glyph in this case. It's usually best to do that,
unless we know there's a LOT of legacy data that will be broken.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Sep 06 2005 - 10:12:54 CDT