On 25 Oct 2006 at 16:48, Noel Stoutenburg wrote: > Andrew Stiller wrote: > > > > On Oct 25, 2006, at 11:27 AM, Noel Stoutenburg wrote: > > > >> I don't perceive advantages of having text and notation in a single > >> font. > > > > Fonts of this type are called "music in text" fonts, and they are > > essential for any writing that includes musical examples. > > > > It is understood that such fonts do not contain a complete set of > > musical symbols, nor a complete set of text symbols, but rather the > > more important of each. Typically, the alphanumeric characters are > > assigned to their typewriter values, while music characters are > > placed in the upper-level ASCII positions. > > I am aware of the existence and benefits of music fonts whose size and > baseline characteristics make them suitable for use in texts. In > fact, the full Unicode set in 4.0 contains some 200 plus music glyphs, > but even at that, the existing glyphs will not in themselves provide a > complete set of glyphs to support music notation in Finale, that is, > even if Finale handled unicode, and the full set of characters from > the Unicode specification was included in a particular font, it would > still be necessary to include an additional font of "notation extras".
I did not suggest that a Finale font limit itself to the Unicode music specification. There's nothing standard about Finale's current fonts, so I see nothing wrong with a full music font not following the standard. Of course, the Unicode font set could be a subset of the full character set. But Finale currently can't deal with any characters beyond 256, which is a bad thing. It reflects a failure to keep up with the times, and makes Finale harder to use. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
