Hi! I've seen discussions from last year about adding nabc support to gregorio, has there been any progress on it since then?
I've tried to create neumatic font from St. Gall family MSS, so far it is very rough, haven't spent any time on spacing, kerning, vertical sizes etc. and many glyphs need to be improved. Also, I'm still missing about 29 glyphs from Cardine's Gregorian Semiology pp12-13, on the other side have some glyphs not listed in that table and some most common combined glyphs, plus 45 alphabetic glyphs. I've uploaded what I have so far to http://people.redhat.com/jakub/gregall/ gregall.sfd is the fontforge font source including background pictures, gregall.ttf the generated TrueType font, gregall.pdf a short document containing a WIP table with the glyphs, MSS pictures, small and larger glyphs and details from where in the manuscripts I've taken each glyph. The font is right now GPLed, am not opposing to other reasonable license. The background images are (almost all) from e-codices and thus CC BY-NC 3.0 licensed, so they'll need to be stripped from the *.sfd once/if the font is in a better shape. First of all, I'd like to know if what I've done so far could be useful for gregorio at all, and if yes, would appreciate any advices or help (hints where to find missing glyphs in the MSS, which of the glyphs look too ugly and need to be improved and how, perhaps help with improving the shape of some glyphs, what to do with character spacing and kerning, if each glyph should be repeated for each base pitch (perhaps using some fontforge script?). Also, I'm not 100% sure about all the shapes I found so far, e.g. the difference between normal and liquescens oriscus, and in the pdf there are several glyph equivalences I'm assuming (= sign in the descriptions), but am not sure about. As for the nabc language: http://www.gregoriochant.org/dokuwiki/doku.php/gregowiki:language I'm wondering: 1) if there shouldn't be a separate two letter type for pressus maior vs. pressus minor 2) perhaps similarly for the 3 vs. 2 arcs quilisma 3) I wonder if there shouldn't be syntax for adding prepuncta as well, not just subpuncta 4) for subpuncta (and prepuncta), it would be nice to be able to specify the shape individually, punctum vs. tractulus vs. tractulus with episema vs. tractulus with episema on both sides vs. stropha liquescens, perhaps with special glyphs in the font for the common combination of the subpunctis or prepunctis that would have proper kerning against most commonly subpunctized or prepunctized neumes 5) as I found far more ls:XXX kinds than the current wiki has, perhaps it would be nice to extend the table Jakub _______________________________________________ Gregorio-devel mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/gregorio-devel
